In case you’ve been wondering whether Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave his “free speech manifesto” because he and his platform genuinely support open expression, or as a public relations stunt, Reclaim The Net thinks it has found the answer.

“Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s presentation about ‘the dangers of censorship’ was accompanied by a practical demonstration of – the dangers of censorship,” the site said. “Zuckerberg’s speech at Georgetown University, live-streamed on Facebook, received a deluge of overwhelmingly positive comments and reactions – so many, in fact, that it appears to have raised suspicions of foul play.”

When Reclaim The Net reached out to Facebook for clarification, it received what was a murky response, at best.

Tucker Bonds, a Facebook spokesman, reportedly told the site that the social media titan uses “ranking signals” to decide which content is “low quality,” and then censors that content accordingly. In other words, Facebook automatically censors content it doesn’t like, and in this case, that content was commentary that was unsupportive of Zuckerberg’s speech.

This website was skeptical of Zuckerberg’s speech, given Facebook’s history of censoring conservatives, including our own Laura Loomer.

We reported:

Amid longtime charges of political bias waged by conservatives and Republicans, including President Trump, Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg assured Americans Thursday he is not using his company to censor and only removes “harmful” or “dangerous” content to prevent polarization and prevent violence.

Facebook, which has permanently banned top conservative journalists and pundits and purged hundreds of media outlets from its platform, relies on the American tradition of freedom of expression that is protected under the First Amendment but still has a responsibility to remove “harmful” content, Zuckerberg claimed in a wide-sweeping speech to students at Georgetown University on Thursday. 

Zuckerberg gave his speech at a precarious time for the company, during which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 50 state’s attorneys general are looking into anti-competitive behavior. The allegations against Facebook stem from its habit of purchasing young companies that could end up being competitors.

Meanwhile, a European Facebook executive admitted to censoring users who post pro-Tommy Robinson content. Robinson is a British free speech activist who was jailed after filming a Muslim grooming gang as it entered a courtroom for trial. Facebook has deemed Robinson to be a purveyor of hate, similarly to the way it labeled our own Laura Loomer and Infowars’ Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson as “dangerous individuals,” and banned all three of them from the site.

But Facebook’s censorship is so serious that Robinson’s supporters cannot even express positive views of him on the site.

“You are allowed to write that you don’t like him, or that he’s an idiot as mentioned in the intro,” said Peter Andreas Münster, Facebook’s Head of Communications for the Nordic Region, we reported. “What you aren’t allowed to do according to our rules is show support, or positively promote, or in other ways give representation to these hate preachers.”

Based on Facebook’s history of censorship, and its continued censorship of conservatives, we’re not banking on any groundbreaking changes from Facebook management after Zuckerberg’s speech.