It comes on the heels of Jeff Bezos’ $40 million bribe in the form of payment to Melania for an Amazon documentary, because who isn’t desperately desirous of watching a documentary about the fascinating nude model from Slovenia made good? Mark Zuckerberg, the third richest man on the planet, issued what, under any other circumstances, might be considered a principled stand for the free speech.
Misinformation is rampant, whether on Facebook, twitter or other social media platforms. Some of it is spread by partisans who believe and spread lies. Some of it is be malevolent actors, whether foreign or domestic, trying to mislead, confuse and weaken the unduly credulous for their own purposes. Neither is good, but then, who is to judge?
Then, on Tuesday, while wearing a $900,000 watch, Zuckerberg issued a mea culpa over video—as well as a full-throated defense of free speech. He announced that Meta was ending its controversial and politically biased fact-checking regime. He promised to reduce censorship on Instagram and Facebook, implement “community notes,” and allow the promotion of political content. He vowed to work with President Donald Trump to “push back against governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” As if all that wasn’t enough, he also said that the company is moving their “trust and safety” and content moderation teams from California to Texas.
For the most part, the points Zuck makes aren’t wrong. Fact-checking has become as embroiled in misinformation as substance. The fact-checkers are as susceptible to their own bias as are the spreaders, viewers and readers of lies. While filling the ranks of fact-checkers in California provides good cause to believe they are deeply prejudiced to the left, will moving moderation to Texas end bias or merely shift it to the right?
But the video didn’t come unattached, but with the sticky fingers of Trump all over it.
The hard-hearted in our newsroom say: Too little, too late. But I say: Better late than never. The cynic in me says people change their minds, often at very politically convenient times, but a good decision is a good decision, whether it’s made from the heart or the pocketbook.
And the salesman in me says: WE WARNED YOU!
At Reason, Robby Soave agrees.
These changes are wildly positive. It’s also heartening that Zuckerberg seems to understand precisely what had gone wrong, and why: The company made attempts to satisfy both mainstream media institutions and even government agencies, particularly when it came to controversial political topics like COVID-19. What moderators soon discovered is that this is impossible; there is no end to the amount of speech suppression that is desired by censorship-inclined entities.
On the other hand, the New York Times does not agree.
In a New York Times article about the news—with a characteristically snarky headline “Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False.”—the Poynter Institute, one of Facebook’s official fact-checking organs, protests that Meta and Meta alone had the power to take down content. This is technically true, but the fact-checkers knew exactly what the deal was; Facebook gave them official status as approved verifiers of information and explicitly stated that moderators would remove content consistent with the verifiers’ recommendations.
What seems to be missing from this analysis of what Zuck declares is why now and why under these circumstances. I would never be one to argue for censorship and against free speech, but is that really going to be the outcome here or is it mere rhetoric to coverup a shift from left to right, with misinformation just as rampant as before but going in the opposite direction? Is this acquiescence to Trump, less expensive than buying Melania for 40 mil, but just as blatant a pay off?
There is, on the third hand, the possibility that social media platforms that have been compelled to live under the constraints of European (not to mention some states) micro-management of their content moderation policies, and Zuck finally has a president willing to back up free speech on social media against content control by Europe and elsewhere.
“Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship, and making it difficult to build anything innovative there,” he said. “Latin American countries have secret courts that can order companies to quietly take things down. China has censored our apps from even working in the country. The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government, and that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the US government has pushed for censorship.”
It’s not that Zuckerberg is wrong about this, or about the fact that misinformation moderation at scale is an impossibility without wreaking havoc with “innocent” posters who get caught in heavy-handed algo moderation. Of course misinformation generated by Russian boiler rooms is bad and dangerous, but it’s one of the trade-offs we’re forced to suffer if there is to be free speech for others. No one said free speech wouldn’t be messy and hard, with the hope that good speech will prevail over bad and truth will overcome lies. History suggests that the marketplace of ideas too often sells Big Macs as delicious health food.
But the fact that Zuck’s free speech epiphany comes on the heels of bowing and scraping to Trump emits that unpleasant odor that taints an otherwise good idea. On the ex-twitters, Musk claims to be a free speech absolutist as he censors promiscuously. Will Zuck’s sudden discovery of free speech produce the same outcome, like Musk in Trump’s favor, cool story notwithstanding? It used to be that being a billionaire meant being able to say “fuck you” to anyone, and yet now the top three are blowing kisses at Trump even if they want to pretend they’re doing it for good reasons and could buy and sell Trump at will.