Facebook is attempting to reposition itself to remain relevant, but will it move beyond mere lip service to those advocating for true free speech? Zuckerberg’s censorship shift is far from free speech.
Why are some people so eager to embrace the idea that being allowed to hurl insults like “cts,” “dks,” and “a*****es” on Facebook is the greatest victory for free speech since the Magna Carta?
Facebook, once a safe space for easily triggered individuals, is now supposedly shifting to become a beacon of free speech and debate. But only for some. For instance, calling transgenderism a mental illness might now be fair game. However, others will have to wait for their turn at “liberation” from virtual censorship.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook and its parent company Meta, recently announced that American users will no longer face third-party fact-checking, at least not from official gatekeepers. Instead, Meta is moving to a “Community Notes” model, inspired by Elon Musk’s X platform. This follows Zuckerberg’s meeting with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and Musk, who has been vocal about free speech.
Meta claims that “societal and political pressure to moderate content” has gone too far. It took Zuckerberg until August 2024 to admit that in 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration had pressured Meta to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humour and satire—a move he now says was a mistake.
Zuckerberg also acknowledged the FBI’s warning about a “Russian disinformation operation” regarding the Biden family’s ties to Ukraine, which he now admits turned out to be true—despite Facebook initially siding with the FBI’s claim that it was fake news.
Until recently, Meta employed fact-checkers in various countries to enforce narrative compliance. For example, in Canada, AFP Fact Check claimed there was “no evidence” linking methane inhibitors for cows to human health risks, despite concerns that such additives could end up in milk or meat. But with the official narrative in place, Facebook users were silenced if they raised doubts.
This censorship began in earnest after the 2016 US presidential election when fears of Russian interference led to demands for stricter controls on social media. In 2018, Meta began prioritising “trustworthy” sources, and under the guise of fighting disinformation, it ramped up its moderation during the COVID pandemic. After the January 2021 Capitol riots, Facebook indefinitely suspended Trump, citing the need to prevent violence.
By September 2024, amid the US presidential election, Meta imposed a global ban on Russian media outlets like RT, citing “foreign interference.” This reduced the chance of users encountering alternative views that could challenge the status quo. RT’s articles on Facebook come with warnings, but no such caution accompanies mainstream Western outlets, whose content is considered always aligned with the “truth.”
There’s no indication that anyone outside the US will escape Meta’s thought policing. France, for example, has expressed concern over the loosening of rules, insisting that platforms like Meta must comply with European law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA). The French government argues that freedom of expression should not be conflated with a “right to virality,” which could allow the unchecked spread of “inauthentic” content.
France also reiterated its commitment to fighting information manipulation by authoritarian regimes, though critics might point out that the French government, led by a prime minister not elected by the public, has its own issues with democratic legitimacy.
Online censorship, particularly through collusion between governments and Big Tech, has deepened the divide between establishment rhetoric and public sentiment in the West. It’s contributed to the political shocks seen in recent elections, as well as the confusion among the online elite, who are often sheltered from the broader discourse.
Facebook is attempting to adapt to stay relevant, but it remains uncertain whether it will move beyond token gestures to meet the growing demand for unfettered access to information and ideas or is Zuckerberg’s free speech promise just another censorship facade?
