Zuckerberg has a Golden Opportunity to Rebrand His Twitter Clone as “The Free Speech Alternative to Twitter”

Andrew Anglin January 8, 2025

Previously: Zuckerberg Says Facebook Ending Ridiculous “Fact-Checker” Program

This week, Mark Zuckerberg posted a video announcing that he would be ending the “fact-checker” program at Facebook as part of a program to attempt to restore free speech on the platform.

He said that free speech is his values and so on, then totally said that he’s doing it because Donald Trump was elected with a massive mandate, and it proves that people do not want censorship of their views on trannies and race, so he’s following the will of the people and allowing them to promote racist and anti-homosexual material.

Zuckerberg’s new branding as the “cool 1990s wigger” is great by the way. I love it. People are saying “oh he’s just doing this fashion change to try to get people to like him more, it’s a total corporate branding operation,” and I’m like “yeah, and it’s working great – I now want to hang out with this guy and smoke weed and listen to The Chronic while we play Halo 1 on the original XBox.” I’ll be like “yo Zuck, pass that shit, dog” and he’ll be like “I got you, homie.” I have dreamt about this scenario daily ever since he unveiled his new look. I keep responding to all of his posts with a heart emoji in the hopes he’s going to invite me over to “hang.”

Furthermore, I think it’s unfair to assume it’s a marketing exercise for his brand, as he may well be experiencing a midlife crisis. He and I are about the same age and I myself recently transformed into a 1990s style wigger, except I also got some face tats to mix the style with 2010s wigger fashion trends. If a new form of wiggerism comes along in the next few years, I am planning to adopt that as well.

Trump was asked about this (the anti-censorship agenda, not the wigger thing, although I don’t know why he wasn’t asked about both), and he gave a funny answer.

The reporter claimed Trump had made “threats” and asked if he thought Zuck was responding to that, and Trump said, “probably, yeah. Probably.”

Although it’s a very funny answer, and I am glad Trump is still funny (at least there’s that), there is some complexity to the issue.

Firstly, it’s not a question as to whether Trump becoming president affected Zuck’s decision: it said outright that it was the impetus for the decision. So the question itself was rather stupid, and the reporter only asked it that way because he wanted to include the word “threat.” (Obviously, the media is extremely upset by Zuck’s announcement, as the media is totally obsessed with censoring anyone who disagrees with their agenda.)

But the second and maybe more interesting thing is that Zuck was complaining about the FBI and the Biden people long before Trump was even the nominee, when no one could have predicted the way things were going to go.

Appearing with the banal Jew Lex Fridman in June of 2023, Zuckerberg was asked about the censorship of Twitter, and told his story about the government coming and telling him he had to silence people.

Whether or not Zuck actually cares about “free speech in principle” or not is probably debatable, but is ultimately irrelevant, as whatever his reasons are, he’s always defended free speech. When I was first coming up in this internet game, back in 2012-13, the ADL was harassing Facebook, demanding they ban Holocaust denial and material about Jewish ritual sacrifice, and Zuck just said “no, full stop.”

Presumably, censorship is very bad for his business, and that’s why he’s against it. But of course, people tend to believe things that are good for them financially, so again, the question of whether or not he actually genuinely believes in free speech is both debatable and irrelevant.

What he said on Fridman combined with what he’s said this week (and how delighted he seemed to be saying it!) gives us a clear picture: Facebook cannot operate without the support of the US government, and when the FBI and then the White House came to him demanding censorship, it was implicit that he wasn’t to go out and tell people “I’m just censoring this because the government told me I have to.” He was told to bring in these “fact-checkers” and just do whatever they told him to do, with the implication that there would be consequences if he didn’t do as he was ordered.

Some people are still mad about getting censored on Facebook. I wouldn’t know, because I don’t use Facebook, because I’m not a 60-year-old looking to set up dates with Filipinas or divorced women I went to high school with. I do know what it is like to be censored, however, and I understand this makes people very angry. However, I don’t know what he was supposed to do.

People have also claimed that Zuckerberg is bad for having funded the Democrats in 2020, but the basic reality there is that because he knew about this illegal FBI-ordered mass censorship, he knew that the Democrats were rigging the election and were going to win regardless, so he put his money behind them so they didn’t come after him. Remember that it is Elizabeth Warren who is constantly saying she is going to “break up” Facebook. If you understand the way these things work, you understand that she doesn’t actually care about monopolies or whatever, she is just a representative for the Democrat Party issuing a threat to Mark Zuckerberg that they will destroy his company if he doesn’t do what he’s told.

While Zuckerberg was not allowed to publicly speak on the issue due to threats from the Biden people, he privately warned his staff that the vaccine would likely be dangerous and could cause genetic mutations.

I have seen people use that video to claim he was publicly trying to convince people to take the vaccine while privately warning people not to take it. But again, he was forced to stay quiet in public, but it’s notable that he had the decency to tell people in private, even people who were not his close friends or family, to beware of this deadly injection being forced on people by the US government.

Everything is different now, and you can see that Zuck, along with everyone else from Silicon Valley, is very much on the Trump Train. There are some good things that go along with that and, as we saw over Christmas, some very bad things (people from India), but it is clearly what is happening. While Zuck announced a new pro-Trump agenda on Facebook – not only ending “fact-checkers,” but also reintroducing political content that will no doubt be promoting Trump and his policies – Jeff Bezos just announced that he’s paying Melania Trump $40 million to make a documentary about her.

Although I am a big fan of his new look, I am not trying to promote Zuck as the ultimate free speech warrior. What I wanted to do was compare him to Elon Musk. Musk made this whole big show about how much he loves free speech, he claimed he was going to give free speech to everyone and allow anything on his site that wasn’t against the law. Because of this, Twitter lost all of their advertisers. After losing the advertisers, when he had nothing at all left to lose, Musk banned me and others. In the last weeks, he’s censored Laura Loomer and basically anyone else who disagreed with him about H-1B. Obviously, Zuckerberg is much more free speech oriented than Elon Musk. There is no evidence at all that Zuck has censored people for personal or political reasons, only ever enacting censorship under threats from the government.

Comparing the censorship track records of these two men is like comparing their bodies.

There’s no contest.

Elon Musk is the worst scumbag on the planet earth, and I hope that now that he has the ability to do freedom of speech, Mark Zuckerberg will start marketing his Twitter clone “Threads” as “The Free Speech Alternative to Twitter.” If free speech is what is popular, as Zuckerberg says, then it should be very easy for Threads to launch a full assault on Twitter with a marketing campaign attacking Musk for his absurd and ultra-extremist censorship agenda.

If I was running this campaign for him (which I have not yet been asked to do, but would gladly accept in the event that I was asked to do it), I would also tell him to keep referring to it as “Twitter.” Just completely ignore all of this “X” bullshit in the marketing of the “Threads is the free speech alternative to Twitter” campaign.

Though it is likely that Zuckerberg would not want the baggage that would come along with hiring me to promote his product, he should absolutely consider hiring Laura Loomer, who I am quite certain would take the job.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2025, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.