Under Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta Platforms – what most people think of as Facebook – has demonstrated a pattern of actions that starkly contradict its professed commitment to free speech. This duplicity not only undermines public trust but also raises serious concerns about the company’s role in shaping public discourse.
A glaring example of Meta’s hypocrisy is its handling of political figures.
Don’t forget that they proudly throttled posts about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election to protect Joe Biden, even having a Facebook spokesman post on Twitter that they were doing so. This was hugely significant, because the laptop contained emails and texts that linked Joe Biden to his family’s lucrative scheme of selling access to him to foreign moneymen from around the globe.
Meta’s actions in censoring posts about the laptop were never based on “misinformation,” but were instead part of a larger effort to influence the outcome of the 2020 election and help Biden against incumbent President Donald Trump. Meta’s decision to limit the spread of factual information on a major political issue speaks volumes about the company’s willingness to suppress speech when it aligns with its political interests.
And their work paid off. Polling information published in the weeks after the election showed that a significant percentage of people who voted for Biden would have changed their minds if they had known about the laptop – in numbers enough to tilt battleground states and the whole election back to Trump.
Afterwards, in January 2021, Meta took the unprecedented step of banning Trump, which was hailed by some and defended by the company as necessary for public safety following the riot at the U.S. Capitol. Meta issued a statement that claimed, incredibly, that “the risks of allowing President Trump to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”
Recommended
Nonsense.
It was really just politics – the unwarranted banishment of a former president of the United States – that not-so-accidentally aligned with the authoritarian bent of the incoming Biden administration. It also happened to go right along with the mood in the new Biden White House, where people loathed Trump so much it made them vibrate with hatred.
Yes, there was no doubt that with the Biden team, Zuckerberg was all in.
However, as political tides shifted, so did Meta’s stance. When it became clear that Trump could return to the White House, Meta reinstated the banned accounts and began courting favor with the former president’s political circle. And now that Trump has won and is preparing to take office once again, Zuckerberg is trying to round the corner, even co-hosting a reception with other billionaires during Trump inaugural festivities.
The rampant inconsistency shows that Meta policies of all kinds are less about principle and more about aligning with the political winds. So, anyone tempted to believe that Zuckerberg’s new tune is permanent ought to keep this recent history in mind.
Meta’s hypocrisy extends beyond its relationships with politicians to its approach toward its competitors. The company has actively lobbied for the banning of its most significant rival, TikTok, a short-form video platform that, unlike Meta, never suspended Trump. Instead of fostering healthy competition, Meta has pushed for government intervention to remove a platform that many people think has reshaped the social media landscape.
Seeking to ban a competitor is not the action of a company truly committed to free speech. In fact, it’s exactly what Biden encouraged Meta to do to Trump.
None of this should have been a surprise.
Meta’s role in the censorship of content during the COVID-19 pandemic further revealed its willingness to abandon free speech and bow to governmental demands when it served its political or business interests. In a recent interview, Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden administration exerted pressure on Meta to suppress certain content. He said government officials “screamed” and “cursed” at Meta employees to ensure the removal of posts, even those that were factually accurate. This capitulation to governmental pressure illustrated Meta’s willingness to compromise its stated values for political expediency.
And, naturally, what Zuckerberg failed to mention in that interview is that Meta willfully participated in these censorship meetings. Unlike the aforementioned TikTok, which did not attend the Biden Administration’s COVID censorship sessions, Meta was a willing partner in the suppression of content.
The bottom line is this: while Meta publicly champions free expression, its actions reveal a different story—one of opportunism and hypocrisy. And beware Zuckerberg’s revamped political stances, since they will most certainly shift as soon as his self-preservation requires it.
Because you know it’s true that if Mark Zuckerberg thought it would help him and Meta, he’d ban Trump all over again.
Tim Murtaugh, the founder and principal of Line Drive Public Affairs, served as a senior advisor on the 2024 Trump campaign and as communications director on the 2020 Trump campaign.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member