One of Googles biggest competitor's is the company "Meta" which is phonetically similar to the judges name. The previous commentator made a joke where they appeared to confuse the corporation for the person. A situation that would be absurd if true, and from there the humour arose.
When a respondent (you) appeared to miss the subtext in the comment, and took it at face value, I made a post where I gave the impression I had made the same mistake , and suggested that the judge had previously had a name phonetically similar to "Facebook" which was the name previously used by the corporation now called "Meta".

Such a situation would require a coincidence even more implausible and absurd than the first, and was intended to demonstrate that neither comment should be taken seriously.

Your comment indicates you either failed to identify the absurdity, possibly due to confirmation bias following your previous response. Or you are attempting to "up the ante" by erroneously taking such absurdity seriously for further humourous effect. Your follow up comments elsewhere suggest the former.

Regardless, the "joke" has now been thoroughly killed by way of explanation. You can choose to accept the explanation or choose to remain in error.