Zuckerberg’s ‘free speech’ pivot is nothing but a cynical power play

Mark Zuckerberg wants you to believe he’s had an epiphany about free speech.

In a video posted this week, presumably from a secret lair hidden beneath a volcano somewhere, the Meta CEO announced plans to scrap fact-checking on his platforms (Facebook, Instagram) in favour of a crowdsourced “community notes” system, similar to what Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) relies on. It’s a decision that’s as dangerous as it is startlingly transparent in its true motivations.

The timing is not subtle. Just as Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, Zuckerberg has decided that fact-checkers – actual journalists who verify claims using careful and diligent research – have “destroyed more trust than they’ve created.” Instead, he says, anyone can decide what’s true.

Zuckerberg frames this as a return to Meta’s “roots around free expression,” which is a curious claim for a company that was initially founded to rank the attractiveness of Harvard students. He speaks of a “cultural tipping point toward prioritising speech,” – a creative way of saying “Trump won and we need to get on his good side.”

Buried in the middle of Zuckerberg’s speech was the news that Meta’s trust and safety teams would be moved from California to Texas, where there is “less concern about the bias of our teams”. This is very telling, since Silicon Valley’s workforce, with its reputation for progressive politics and employee activism, has become inconvenient for any company which may be eager to please a Republican administration.

By moving to Texas, (again, following the lead of Elon Musk who announced last year that the SpaceX and X HQs would be moving to Austin) Meta is seeking to distance itself from employees who might object to its new direction. It’s a calculated effort to replace staff who’ve historically pushed back against harmful content decisions with those less likely to raise ethical concerns. The irony here is off the scale. Meta is addressing a supposed bias by explicitly choosing a location that tolerates its political leanings.

There’s plenty in Zuck’s speech that gives away his real game plan. Consider how he describes the content his platforms need to moderate: “drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” All of which are serious matters, which absolutely need to be tackled. But there’s no mention of election interference, coordinated disinformation campaigns, or targeted harassment: the nuts and bolts of the right wing propaganda machine. Instead he talks about getting rid of “restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse”. He has opened the door to prejudice and bigotry, given a green flag for attacks on the vulnerable, with no checks and balances.

The most revealing part comes when Zuckerberg discusses working with Trump “to push back on governments around the world who are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” By this, he means that Meta will help the new administration fight regulatory efforts, particularly in Europe, in exchange for a favourable business environment at home. This is the same Mark Zuckerberg who, after Trump’s 2020 election lies led to the January 6th insurrection, wrote that “the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.” Now, apparently, we’re meant to believe that fact-checking is the real threat to democracy.

Meta’s fact-checking program wasn’t perfect, no system is, as Zuckerberg points out, but it was a genuine attempt to grapple with the platform’s immense power and responsibility. Professional fact-checkers might occasionally show bias – they’re human, after all – but they’re accountable to journalistic standards and ethics. They can be scrutinised, challenged, and held responsible for their work.

Community notes, while occasionally useful, are susceptible to brigading, manipulation, and the same echo chamber effects that make social media such a fertile ground for misinformation in the first place. It’s your word against theirs. The average social media user is more likely to share a post because it confirms what they already believe. It’s why your aunt still thinks Bill Gates is putting microchips in vaccines.

A system that’s easier to game is a system that’s easier to control. And control, not free speech, is what this is really about. Meta isn’t dismantling its fact-checking program to champion free expression – it’s doing it to curry favour with a returning president who has made no secret of his hostility toward the company.

It’s about power. Meta already has plenty – Facebook and WhatsApp are so deeply woven into our daily lives that they’re practically utilities. Instagram shapes culture and commerce. Threads is rapidly growing. Zuckerberg needs his company to stay right at the centre of our lives, and seems determined to cement his platforms’ influence by aligning with the incoming administration.

He ends his announcement by saying he’s “looking forward to this next chapter.” I imagine he is, as it is one where Meta stands to consolidate its power while washing its hands of responsibility for what happens on its platforms. The rest of us, faced with the prospect of the most powerful social tech company in the world ushering in a new era of rampant misinformation and unchecked attacks on the vulnerable … we should be scared to turn the page.

Marc Burrows is a freelance journalist, author and comedian based in Bristol, specialising in internet and pop culture. He is a former Curator at the pre-Musk Twitter, and Senior Community Moderator at The Guardian. His biography of Sir Terry Pratchett won a Locus Award in 2021 and was adapted into an acclaimed touring stand up show, and he has since written books on Nirvana and Manic Street Preachers as well as a social history of 60s London.