Mark Zuckerberg’s video announcement on Tuesday that the company would abandon its fact-checking efforts and loosen moderation marks a stunning reversal of years of promises regarding safety and misinformation.
As I watched it, I wondered whether Meta Platforms Inc’s public relations team held off until Tuesday because posting it on Monday — the anniversary of the Capitol insurrection — would have been too on the nose.
After promoting Republican Party-ally Joel Kaplan to head of policy and appointing US president-elect Donald Trump pal Dana White to Meta’s board, this next act to open the floodgates to hate speech means the MAGA storming of Menlo Park is just about complete.
Illustration: Mountain People
Zuckerberg said he would work on issues of free speech with Trump — who, just four years ago, was considered too dangerous even to be a Meta user.
There is a view that Zuckerberg has shamefully abandoned his values in fear of Trump and in the hope that cozying up would be good for business. However, it would be wrong to believe Zuckerberg ever truly held those values in the first place — and he has finally found the political cover needed to drop a years-long charade on safety and shed any pretense about being responsible for the accuracy of information that users see.
While it is hard to fathom when exactly the US’ culture wars began to take hold, it is much easier to pinpoint the moment when Meta — still called Facebook at the time — became one of its central characters. Immediately after the 2016 election, Zuckerberg casually claimed that it was “crazy” to think that “fake news” on the social network had played a role in swaying the election in Trump’s favor. He was pilloried in the media.
He later said he was wrong to make those comments, but I have never believed he was sincere. With the brain of a software engineer, and the tendency to see the world in ones and zeros, Zuckerberg saw that news content was only a tiny portion of what was posted on Facebook, and misinformation only a small fraction of that. He felt the company was being made into a scapegoat for Trump’s victory. He was also smart enough to know that policing speech — whether misinformation or hate content — would put Meta in the impossible position of deciding what was true or fair.
However, pressure mounted, and Zuckerberg knew he had to be seen to do something. He sought to outsource what he could, setting up an “independent” Oversight Board to make judgements on bigger-picture moderation questions, and launching a global fact-checking operation. This drew on the resources of large mainstream media companies, but also smaller misinformation busters like Snopes and others.
Once the press buzz subsided, however, it became clear the scheme was underfunded, with tools not up to the task of handling the wads of misinformation being posted. However, I suspect Zuckerberg — the engineer — always knew this was a system that could never work at scale. No number of fact-checkers, whether he paid for 10,000 or 10 million, could ever react quickly enough, or consistently enough, to quell the spread of misinformation. He also never wanted Meta to be seen as a publisher that was responsible for vetting the news it circulated.
Still, fact-checking served its purpose as a public relations effort. That purpose no longer exists, so neither would the fact-checkers. Meta says it would instead introduce a feature similar to X’s Community Notes, where users can submit their own fact-checks. Spend 10 minutes on that disastrous site to see how well that is working, on a network with a user base several times smaller than Facebook’s.
Really, what the moment allows is for Zuckerberg to claim a different kind of victory by throwing in accusations that its fact-checkers were politically biased, to the delight of some of those Meta opponents who are back in government.
When I asked Meta for examples of this bias, to my surprise a spokesman sent me three: A story about a fact-check on the causes of inflation (which was not inaccurate); another about a doctored picture of LeBron James (also not inaccurate); and a Financial Times column about the nuances of fact-checking more broadly. You have to look pretty hard for evidence of systemic political bias in those examples. Even if that is what Meta saw, then the next question is why it did not do anything for so long — the last example is from 2021.
Now that the time is right — what Zuckerberg called a “tipping point” in attitudes toward speech online — the Meta CEO can finally speak his mind on the matter, clearly still smarting from the negative coverage in the wake of Trump’s first election. On Tuesday, he put that tone firmly on the record.
“After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy,” he said.
What we are seeing in Silicon Valley, above all else, is a backlash to the accountability of the era of US President Joe Biden. A big part of that, as evidenced by his “legacy media” jibe, is Zuckerberg’s belief — shared by many in the tech business as though it were gospel — that editors and publishers sent reporters out like attack dogs to take down Meta’s business so that old media could somehow return to its glory years. It is ludicrous, of course, but it has given many tech leaders the excuse they need to treat bad press as disingenuous attacks rather than an examination of their actions and character. In Silicon Valley, every act of journalism is deemed a “hit piece.”
That press coverage led to uncomfortable and consequential government action. First were congressional hearings, which amounted to public billionaire floggings, particularly for Zuckerberg. Then came the regulations, most notably in Europe, with tighter controls and harsher punishments. Closer to home, antitrust matters have loomed, with regulators slowing down deals Meta has made or wanting to unwind them altogether.
By throwing in the right’s favorite imprecise buzzwords — Censorship. Secret courts. Political bias. Legacy media. — Zuckerberg is pandering to Trump and his circle and giving the impression that he, to use the right’s cringeworthy lexicon, has been “red-pilled.” In truth, Zuckerberg’s values do not seem to have shifted at all: He wants the press to go away, regulators to get off his back and the excuse to give up on safety measures he never believed in in the first place.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS