BREAKING: A Senior Meta Engineer revealed that the platform uses shadowbanning to suppress posts critical of figures like Vice President Kamala Harris, reducing their visibility without notifying users.
The engineer also disclosed that Meta has a team dedicated to influencing information flow, with the power to affect election outcomes.
In a revelation captured by O’Keefe Media Group, a senior software engineer at Meta, Jeevan Gyawali, admitted that the platform is actively engaged in suppressing certain content to shape political narratives. During a hidden-camera interview, Gyawali confirmed that Meta employs shadowbanning tactics to demote posts automatically, especially those critical of prominent political figures like Vice President Kamala Harris.
Gyawali explained how posts that challenge Harris, even on personal grounds—such as questioning her fitness for office because she does not have children—are “automatically demoted.” The person who makes such posts will not be notified, but their content will experience a noticeable decline in engagement and visibility.
This demotion process is managed by Meta’s “Integrity Team,” which uses a system called “civic classifiers” to determine what content is suppressed, essentially shadowbanning users without their knowledge.
Beyond individual post suppression, Gyawali revealed that Meta has a Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) team dedicated to preventing platform abuse, created in April 2024. This team, according to Gyawali, continuously monitors potential threats and scenarios that could harm Meta’s vision of “protecting democracy.”
However, the platform’s definition of protection, as explained by Gyawali, includes demoting or outright censoring content deemed harmful to the political narrative supported by Meta, a tactic Gyawali says is used “100%” of the time.
Gyawali confirmed without hesitation that Meta can indeed sway political outcomes, admitting that Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and CEO of Meta, fully supports this agenda and the platform’s political influence, particularly in favor of the Democratic Party.
With content manipulation systems like “civic classifiers” and teams dedicated to controlling the narrative, this latest investigation raises serious questions about how much power a single platform can and should have over public discourse and political outcomes.
With content manipulation systems like “civic classifiers” and teams dedicated to controlling the narrative, this latest investigation raises serious questions about how much power a single platform can and should have over public discourse and political outcomes.
