Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire founder of Facebook and CEO of Meta, announced a number of pro-free speech reforms on his company's social media platforms on Tuesday. The move was preceded by another attention-grabbing decision, in which UFC chief executive and close Donald Trump confidante Dana White was added to Meta's board. White introduced Trump at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last summer. The New York Times notes that even before the policy changes, Zuckerberg had already sprear-headed or approved a number of additional notable shifts, calling them a "series of moves to strengthen its ties to the incoming administration. Last week, the company shook up the top of its policy team, appointing a longtime executive known for his Republican ties as head of global policy. Meta has also donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural fund." Then came this:
Zuckerberg says Facebook and Instagram will now prioritize free speech.
— Stephen Taylor (@stephen_taylor) January 7, 2025
Attributes a recent cultural tipping point to debates like immigration and gender where censorship is now "out of touch".
Says fact checkers were too biased and legacy media too political about censorship pic.twitter.com/1ituXsFm5s
Here is the formal announcement from Meta, with a point-by-point explication of the changes, summarized here:
- Starting in the US, we are ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to a Community Notes model.
- We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations.
- We will take a more personalized approach to political content, so that people who want to see more of it in their feeds can.
The overall thrust, as described in the release:
In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable. Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do. We want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression. Today, we’re making some changes to stay true to that ideal...As part of these changes, we will be moving the trust and safety teams that write our content policies and review content out of California to Texas and other US locations.
Recommended
CNN is calling the overhaul a "MAGA makeover," for a sense of how many on the Left are responding to it. Reaction on the Right has been largely positive, but still somewhat mixed, as some wonder if this is just window-dressing, or a cynical and temporary adjustment based on the way the political winds are currently blowing. Ben Shapiro is encouraged: "This is a sea change in the direction at Facebook. Zuckerberg spelled out his vision of free speech at Georgetown in 2019, to the consternation and shock of the Left; Facebook then proceeded to cave, engaging in mass censorship. The tide has turned. Good for Zuckerberg," he posted on Twitter/X. Clay Travis cheered the decision as "seismic." Erick Erickson sees it as a "huge win for free speech." Saagar Enjeti writes that it represents "one of the biggest indications of 'elections have consequences' I have ever seen. But Mollie Hemingway isn't exactly rushing to join the celebrations:
In no way should Zuckerberg be applauded for claiming to stop some of his draconian censorship that has nearly destroyed free speech in America. There need to be sincere apologies, massive restitution, transparency in the removal of filters that advantage left-wing press, etc.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 7, 2025
People don't get to burn your house down, then claim without evidence they are no longer burning houses, and get celebrated. There needs to be accountability.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 7, 2025
On substance, I think all of the changes are laudable and improvements over the speech-suppressing status quo. Zuckerberg is also admitting widespread mistakes, rooted in the old policies that he concedes went to far. This is progress. Twitter-style 'community notes' aren't perfect, but they're preferable to certain ideologues posing as unbiased 'fact-checkers' putting their thumb on the scale (some have been more credible and reliable than others, some of which are terrible). Lifting other restrictions is also an improvement. No regime will be flawless, but these are movements in the right direction. As for the motives at play, Zuckerberg very transparently cites the election result as a major factor. Donald Trump evidently agrees:
"Do you think [Zuckerberg] is directly responding to the threats you've made to him in the past with these actions?"
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) January 7, 2025
TRUMP: "Probably." pic.twitter.com/BD3kpwaO4f
Candidly, I think much of the excitement on the Right is warranted. These moves are virtually all good, or at least better. Having met Zuckerberg several years ago, I do think he is genuinely interested in viewpoint diversity, and is curious about how different people think. I also get the sense that he's been at least somewhat red-pilled in recent years on the free expression front, and that some of this is based on true introspection. That said, am I confident we'd be seeing all of these alterations -- or even perhaps any of them -- if Kamala Harris had won the election? Absolutely not, which is why skepticism is undoubtedly warranted. In short, one cheer is due here. Then let's wait and see.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member