Rule 1: Never trust Facebook
Zuckerberg is MAGAing Facebook and Instagram. But he's always done what suits the company, not what helps the users.
The only surprise about Facebook’s recent moves is that anybody is surprised at all. Facebook has always been a toxic, manipulative company, run by a CEO-as-dictator that is utterly assured of the fact that he is cleverer than anyone else, and will win. Zuckerberg founded Facebook while he was still a student, and has done nothing else but run it in the two decades since. And why should he? It has made him one of the most powerful men in the world.
The first sign that something was brewing was the departure of former UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg from Facebook. Clegg was leader of the Liberal Democrats, a UK centre left party. Given the general difference between UK politics and its US equivalents, that would make him solidly left wing by US standards.
His replacement?
He will be replaced by his current deputy and Republican Joel Kaplan, who previously served as deputy chief of staff in the White House during President George W Bush's administration, and is known for handling the company's relations with Republicans.
OK, then. Meta is going MAGA.
Meta is running to the right
Meta is still a US company, and aligning itself with the incoming administration, which has already made some threatening noises towards the company, and Zuckerberg personally. Alongside many other tech leaders, Zuckerberg is kissing the Trumpian ring, but he’s reshaping chunks of his company around it too.
Fact-checkers are going, community notes are in (which might not be a terrible thing), and certain forms of hate speech are allowed again. Facebook is quietly removing explicit support for some marginalised communities.
From mouthing “free speech” platitudes to ending DEI programmes, it’s like Zuck is working his way down the current right-wing talking points list, and ticking them off. Often, in fact, by reversing decisions he made when the left wing viewpoints dominated.
And we all know why.
Kissing the Trumpian ring
Late last year, Zuckerberg went to the court of President Trump in Florida, and came back determined to change the company, as the New York Times reports:
The entire process was highly unusual. Meta typically alters policies that govern its apps — which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in. Any shifts generally take months. But Mr. Zuckerberg turned this latest effort into a closely held six-week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.
Remember, Zuckerberg has a controlling stake in Facebook. He is, in essence, its dictator for life. And, as 404 Media’s Jason Koebler reports, employees there are finding out just how little their views matter:
“It’s total chaos internally at Meta right now,” one current employee told 404 Media.“ The entire thread of comments shared is dissent toward the new policy, save for one leader repeating Zuckerberg talking points. I’d call the mood shock and disbelief,” they added. “It’s embarrassment and shame that feels self-inflicted, different than mistakes the company has made in the past.”
Meta really doesn’t like 404 Media’s stories — to the point of censoring them, just like it’s doing to links to Instagram competitor Pixelfed… As John Gruber put it:
True free speech is the freedom to avoid seeing alternatives to Instagram.
Zuckerberg’s eye on the TikTok prize
So, Zuck is reinventing himself and his company, to align better with a new dominant cultural zeitgeist in the US. He even went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and bro’ed it up to the max. (More “masculine energy”? FFS.) That gives him a measure of protection as the new administration moves into place. Trump certainly seems happy with his moves.
Of course, these self-same changes are unlikely to help Meta in the European Union, for example. It’s perhaps predictable that the abandonment of fact-checkers is contained to the US initially — EU legislation will make it very hard for them to do the same and keep operating there. But maybe Zuck has his eye on a bigger prize: the TikTok audience.
If the US TikTok ban goes ahead, there are two likely winners: YouTube, with its Shorts, and Meta with Instagram Reels. (The shift to Chinese app RedNote is unlikely to last, as it can be banned in the US just as easily, and for exactly the same reasons, as I pointed out to Sky News.) These were the winners in India when it banned TikTok. If Zuck can pull that off, he solves Meta’s biggest problem: young people just aren’t using its apps as much older people are. If he gets this right, he might have assured Meta’s dominance for another generation — even if he takes a short-term reputation hit.
Why Zuckerberg doesn’t fear criticism
If and when the political tide changes in the US, so too will Facebook. You might think that people won’t forgive the site — but you’d be wrong. Zuck has plenty of evidence that he can piss off users — and they’ll keep coming back. H made their private posts public, he ran experiments on their moods, he let misinformation run rampant two electoral cycles ago. Zuck is very much of the opinion that people, in general, are “dumb fucks”. They’ll keep using his products.
Are you feeling superior right now? Have you quit Facebook and Instagram? Well done. Now, how about WhatsApp? That’s a Meta product, too. Yeah, thought not…
He has decades of experience in pissing people off, and seeing them continue using his products, going right back to the introduction of the news feed, 19 years ago.
The dangers of autocratic tech billionaires
Of course, it’s merely a coincidence that easing up on the moderation and fact-checking will save the company a bunch of cash. No more funding independent fact-checkers. No more internal DEI costs and staff. Irrelevant to the company, surely? Facebook isn’t trying to control its costs as it pivots ways from its failed metaverse initiative towards AI. It’s not, say, cutting 5% of its workforce. Oh, wait.
Meta/Facebook is Zuckerberg and Zuckerberg is Meta/Facebook. He will do anything he needs to do to keep that company at the top, Ibecasiue his whole life is invested in it. He isn’t following the path Musk has blazed at Twitter/X. Zuckerberg made that path. And other autocratic tech billionaires are merely following.
In the very first meeting I had about Facebook, around 2008/2009 I said that I thought it was dangerous, and risky for the publishing business. I don’t think I’ve even been so conclusively and comprehensively right in my life, before or after.
Why this matters
- Facebook’s products are likely to become more polarised and toxic in light of these changes. Not to the extent of Musk’s X, sure, but certainly less pleasant for many, even as engagement and use amongst people whose opinions will now be given freer amplification. You need to monitor the return you’re getting on time invested on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. And don’t forget that WhatsApp is a Meta product, too.
- Make sure any future audience acquisition/engagement plans you have don’t reply on Meta products.
- It’s possible that the loosening of the controls on political content on Meta products might benefit audience work. My gut feeling is not: the depression of reach on link posts will stop it having much impact on us. But it’s certainly worth trying.
- Never, ever trust Meta.
More on the Facebook changes
- dana boyd: The Ministry of Empowerment
- John Battelle: When tech gets too big to fail
- The Mastodon Team: The people should own the town square
- David Wilding: Some background on Twitter’s community notes
- Alexios Mantzarlis: Let’s fact-check Mark Zuckerberg’s fact-checking announcement
Why you need your own website
Gita Jackson, co-owner of Aftermath, a website about gaming and internet culture:
To me, having my own website, even one I run as a business with my friends, gives me a degree of freedom over my own work that I’ve never had before. If you look at my work on Kotaku, there’s so many garbage ads on the screen you can barely see the words. Waypoint and Motherboard are both being run like a haunted ship, pumping out junk so that Vice’s new owners can put ads on it. I don’t have to worry about that anymore—I don’t have to worry about my work being taken down or modified or sold, or put in an AI training set against my will. I have my own website, and it is mine, and I get to own it completely. I hope someday soon I can visit your website.
If you build your future on someone else’s platform, they own your future.
Quick Links
- 📱 Vertical video is breaking out of the app and taking up home on webpages
- 🔍 Google Discover is having a traffic moment. What can you do to optimise for it? Almost nothing.
- 💰 Beehiiv follows Ghost and Substack with a “grants for journalists” scheme. I suspect these end up being cheap marketing rather than genuine business -starters…
- 👹 There’s a problem with fake social media accounts of big publishing brands, including Vogue.
Sign up for e-mail updates
Join the newsletter to receive the latest posts in your inbox.