Except for the million dollar wristwatch, it was like a hostage movie. On January 7, Mark Zuckerberg posted a clip to Facebook and Instagram announcing changes to content moderation on his social networks, in response to what he called the “cultural tipping point” of Donald Trump’s election. He said there were “too many mistakes and censorship”, adding that Trump’s return “offers an opportunity to restore freedom of expression”. He also appointed Dana White, a Trump supporter, to Meta’s board of directors (as well as John Elkann, the boss of Exor, which co-owns the parent company of The Economist).
Despite all the talk about freedom, Zuckerberg’s video once again illustrated how the incoming president intimidates and controls the American business world. Trump previously called Facebook an “enemy of the people” and threatened to make Zuckerberg “spend the rest of his life behind bars.”
Zuckerberg isn’t the only executive to give in: Everyone from Apple’s Tim Cook to OpenAI’s Sam Altman has reportedly donated to Trump’s vain inauguration fund. This week, Amazon announced a $40 million biopic about the incoming First Lady.
Holocaust denial
But no matter how grotesque the circumstances are and the motives so dubious, Meta’s radical change is justified. Freedom of expression online urgently needs to be expanded to make American democracy resistant to everything it will face in the coming years.
Zuckerberg was once an ardent advocate of free speech, allowing content such as Holocaust denial despite numerous protests. But following claims of Russian online interference in Donald Trump’s first election in 2016 and a wave of disinformation surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the company cracked down on a wide range of ‘legal but objectionable’ content, from quackery to bizarre groups like QAnon.
Transgender rights can no longer be freely debated on Facebook
What once seemed like common sense has increasingly come at the expense of users’ freedom of expression. Not to mention the freedom from error; in some cases, completely correct statements have been blocked, such as when Facebook New York Poststory about Joe Biden’s son Hunter, which turned out to be true.
The definition of hate speech has been expanded to such an extent that, for example, transgender rights can no longer be freely debated. The automated filters are so strict that Meta even admits that 10 to 20 percent of the removed content was removed incorrectly. It is therefore gratifying that Zuckerberg has agreed to replace fact-checking with reports that users can post themselves, and to relax the rules on sensitive topics such as gender.
Yet there are also risks. Zuckerberg acknowledges that moderation is often a compromise and that his new rules will cause more “annoyance” online. Advertisers, who are keen on ‘brand-safe’ content, will resist this.
Another danger is that platforms will use ‘freedom of expression’ as an excuse to skimp on curbing illegal content, which is after all a costly and complicated procedure. On Telegram, a libertarian network popular in Russia, has become a haven for criminals due to its lack of oversight and management.
Also read
Zuckerberg himself is now spreading misinformation
Panicked CEO
The best way to protect yourself against these dangers is to be transparent about how the rules are drawn up. Meta’s independent supervisory board, which has been monitoring the values and standards since 2020, appears to have been misled by this week’s announcement. After initially supporting the measures, the council has now expressed its concerns about them. The rules for what can and cannot be said online must be transparently explained and defended, and not abolished by a panicky CEO before Trump’s inauguration.
Nevertheless, Meta has taken a step in the right direction. Social networks must prevent illegal content. And for the sake of advertisers and users, they probably want to keep it civil. But they should no longer concern themselves with what is right or wrong. Only a fool believes everything that appears on his timeline.