Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg released a video on Jan. 7 sharing news that his social media company, which includes Facebook and Instagram, is ditching censorship in favour of free expression. In the video, he claimed that he has always understood “the importance of protecting free expression.” Why, he even spoke about it at Georgetown University five years back, he told us.
I don’t buy it. Three more likely scenarios: Zuckerberg remains a savvy businessman who acutely understands that our cultural zeitgeist has damn near reversed course, away from the left’s repressive tolerance; he (as a Jewish man) made an about-face regarding censorship on his platforms following accusations that he was silencing “pro-Palestine” — often a handy euphemism for “antisemitic” — discourse; or that he is a pushover in the face of government authority, and has always been in favour of restricting speech.
The clues are in his own words — including his 2019 Georgetown speech — and his previous behaviour.
Note that in his video announcement last week, Zuckerberg dodged every opportunity to take personal responsibility for the astounding levels of censorship that the public had grown accustomed to on his platforms. Instead, he blamed censorious governments, a legacy media that “wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy” after Donald Trump’s first presidential win in 2016, the “complex systems” his company used to filter content, the “politically biased” fact checkers under his employ, and even — staggeringly — his own user base.
“For a while, the community asked to see less politics, because it was making people stressed,” he insisted. He was simply trying to protect us from our own scary feelings — a true gentleman.
And what about his allegedly pro-free speech talk at Georgetown? If you read between the lines, you will see that Zuckerberg’s argument for free speech is eroded by countless provisos. It was merely a defence of the appropriate limitations governments must place on free expression. Of his three key arguments, in fact, was one that governments must “build new institutions so companies like Facebook aren’t making so many important decisions about speech on (their) own.”
We need not look any further than Canada to understand what sort of “new institution” Zuckerberg is hinting at: our nightmarish, Orwellian online harms bill — fortunately killed when Trudeau prorogued Parliament this month — threatened Canadians with life in prison if found guilty of committing a hate crime. Hate crimes under the bill included any that were motivated by hatred, defined as “detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” The point at which an internet comment could land a person in prison was left unclear.
Had it received royal assent, it would have been accompanied by a new “Digital Safety Commission” to oversee social media platforms. That sounds an awful lot like the “new institutions” Zuckerberg hinted at.
Also from his Georgetown speech, Zuckerberg spoke of other “appropriate” limits, as he sees it, to free expression: from “not (encouraging) polarizing content” to “clearer rules for the internet.” He warned that “some people will use their voice to organize violence, undermine elections or hurt others.” Emphasis on “hurt others.” What does that mean, other than that he approves of his censorious fact checkers’ free reign to curb speech they deem offensive? Likewise for the term “polarizing content.” What is that? Who gets to decide? And what if an issue is, by its nature, polarizing? Is the populace not allowed to be polarized — even when circumstances warrant it?
Zuckerberg is no champion of free speech.
His rival, X owner Elon Musk, has a record of challenging censorious governments, including that of Australia, in court. Meta was more likely to be sued for its censorship in recent years, or to buckle under government pressure to censor content.
Zuckerberg censored COVID-19 content at the behest of the Biden administration. And now, he is merely going along with the desires of the Trump administration.
“Finally, we’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” Zuckerberg said in his video.
“That’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship. By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further.”
In what appears to be nothing more than signals of fealty to the new Trump administration — via attempts to rebrand himself as an anti-woke free speech guy — Zuckerberg has also added UFC CEO (and Trump buddy), Dana White, to Meta’s board, directed staff to remove tampons from the men’s restrooms at Meta offices, and, as all modern free speech guys with any credibility must do, made an appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. It’s as though Zuckerberg is in the midst of a king’s coronation for his new reign at Meta. It remains to be seen which manosphere powerhouse will be willing to ceremoniously place a newly minted crown on Zukerberg’s head.
Zuckerberg is making the correct decision to embrace free expression. However, his history as a censorship czar for American and foreign governments cannot be overlooked.
Let’s hope he makes good on his promise.
National Post