Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Social media company Meta Platforms on Tuesday scrapped its U.S. fact-checking program and reduced curbs on discussions around contentious topics such as immigration and gender identity… The move is Meta's biggest overhaul of its approach to managing political content on its services in recent memory and comes as CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been signaling a desire to mend fences with the incoming administration…
“‘We've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship. It's time to get back to our roots around free expression,’ Zuckerberg said in a video… In place of a formal fact-checking program to address dubious claims posted on Meta's platforms, Zuckerberg instead plans to implement a system of ‘community notes’ similar to that used on Elon Musk-owned social media platform X. Meta also will stop proactively scanning for hate speech and other types of rule-breaking, reviewing such posts only in response to user reports.” Reuters
The left is disappointed about the changes, arguing that hate speech is likely to increase.
“Alexios Mantzarlis, who founded the fact-checking initiative that came under Meta leadership’s fire, drew a connection between Musk and Zuck in a bristling statement that read, in part: ‘Mark Zuckerberg had eight years’ worth of data to prove his belief that Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program was biased. Instead of sharing any hard evidence, however, he chose to cosplay like Elon Musk and promise free expression for all.’”
Nitish Pahwa, Slate
“[Meta’s new Global Policy Chief stated] ‘We’ve got a new administration and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression, and that makes a difference.’…
“The new president is not a ‘big defender of free expression.’ He has threatened to sue or sued multiple news outlets for reports with which he disagreed. He has picked an FBI director who has pledged to target critical media outlets. Multiple reports from Trump’s first presidency indicated his interest in using force against peaceful protests.”
Philip Bump, Washington Post
“While it’s true that users don’t like having their posts taken down, especially by blunt moderation systems, users also really don’t like being called slurs, having their identity or humanity debated, or spending time on social networks whose algorithms elevate hateful and divisive posts and personalities. Most advertisers want no proximity to any of that either. If social networks don’t work to contain those sorts of things, they proliferate.”
Will Oremus, Washington Post
“Narrower hate-speech policies may make sense to enable more debate on hot-button U.S. issues including the border and gender identity. But they will also end up loosening the spigot on ethnic vilification in parts of the world including Myanmar, South Sudan and Ethiopia, where such hatreds can explode into uncontrolled violence…
“In the West Bank, Maldives, some 30 countries in Africa, and elsewhere, Meta platforms essentially are the internet. In Africa, Meta invested in a program known as Free Basics to give users free online access through their phones, providing a lifeline — though a controversial one — for individuals and businesses that makes them dependent on the platform…
“[Meta’s] choice to err on the side of more speech is a defensible, if imperfect, response to a political moment in the U.S… Around the world, though, users will have little say over how these changes play out in vastly different contexts.”
Suzanne Nossel, Los Angeles Times
The right applauds the changes, arguing that more speech should be allowed on social media.
The right applauds the changes, arguing that more speech should be allowed on social media.
“In his declaration, Zuckerberg repeatedly made the case for free speech as a good in and of itself… Ultimately, Zuckerberg said that if it came down to a choice between catching ‘less bad stuff’ and ‘accidentally’ taking down ‘innocent people’s posts,’ he would henceforth choose ‘to catch less bad stuff.’ That tradeoff is not unique to social media; rather, it is the most frequent quandary that faces free societies…
“Zuckerberg’s move ought to be seen as a reaction to change within Silicon Valley rather than as a leading indicator. It has taken a long time, but there are growing signs that many of America’s most prominent tech entrepreneurs have begun to recall the swashbuckling spirit for which their forebears became famous…
“The left incessantly insisted that Trump would impose autocracy if elected again. But to conservatives, this feels like the end of Big Tech autocracy. The Republican half of America will have more leeway to say things that the Democrat half cannot abide–like COVID probably came from a lab in Wuhan, and Tony Fauci loves himself too much. Opposing mass importation wasn’t racist, and illegal immigrants are lawbreakers. Mark Zuckerberg tore down the wall of censorship. You can tell who favors censorship by noticing who is upset.”Tim Graham, Daily Signal“Still, while he is not the first, Zuckerberg is certainly one of the most consequential among the founders who have altered course. With more than 3 billion monthly active users, Facebook is the most popular social media site in the world.”
The Editors, National Review
“The left incessantly insisted that Trump would impose autocracy if elected again. But to conservatives, this feels like the end of Big Tech autocracy. The Republican half of America will have more leeway to say things that the Democrat half cannot abide–like COVID probably came from a lab in Wuhan, and Tony Fauci loves himself too much. Opposing mass importation wasn’t racist, and illegal immigrants are lawbreakers. Mark Zuckerberg tore down the wall of censorship. You can tell who favors censorship by noticing who is upset.”
Tim Graham, Daily Signal
“We should not conclude that the changes Facebook is making to its content moderation are going to be permanent if they are a response to one election. If the censorious regime to which the institution committed itself at the end of the last decade was an outgrowth of the Left’s political capture of the institution and the sense that Democrats would soon control the levers of power, we can expect to see the pendulum shift again along with the political winds…
“This is all a rational response to a government that enjoys far too much power and influence over private commercial enterprises. If the prevailing corporate culture in America must reflect whatever the party in power in Washington believes, we should withhold that third cheer for Zuckerberg’s maneuver. Democrats won’t be out of power forever.”
Noah Rothman, National Review
