Mark Zuckerberg Promises Freedom Of Expression On Meta, But Does He Really Mean It?

Mark Zuckerberg is announcing sweeping changes to Meta’s content moderation policies. He claims that his vision for Meta is about recommitting to free expression and speech – or so he says. Copying Elon Musk’s Community Notes Meta is ditching its third-party fact-checking program in the U.S. and replacing it with Community Notes , a feature copied straight from X (formerly Twitter). According to Meta, "Once the program is up and running, Meta won’t write Community Notes or decide which ones show up. They are written and rated by contributing users." The company claims this will reduce bias and empower diverse perspectives. But as @wakeupbylinda pointed out, “Zuck’s move to end censorship at Meta is also a business move. Instagram was the most deleted app in 2023 with the younger generation flocking to TikTok. He spent millions on negative PR campaigns against TikTok and that didn’t work so then he lobbied with lawmakers to get the app banned and force the sale." "Businesses were also spending more money on ads on TikTok and less on IG/FB ads. Zuck had no choice but to adapt or his legacy would die.” It seems to me that, just as TikTok is (reportedly) getting banned, Zuckerberg decided to jump on the freedom of speech and expression train, hoping to sway social media users to turn to his platforms. It’s rather convenient. Meta is also loosening its grip on content, lifting restrictions on politically charged topics like immigration and gender identity. "It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms," Meta’s statement reads. Meta even admitted that in December 2024, they removed millions of pieces of content daily, acknowledging that "one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes." Mistakes or not, this newfound leniency feels more like a PR stunt than a genuine attempt at reform. But we can’t suddenly forget about Meta’s track record. Personalization markets itself under the guise of “improving user experience,” but it’s about keeping people glued to their screens and, by extension, increasing ad revenue. Look up the shareholders of Meta, and this will all make sense. It’s also ironic how Zuckerberg once said in his 2019 Georgetown speech, "Some people believe giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing us together... I think that’s dangerous." Yet here we are, with a platform that’s spent years fueling division through hyper-targeted content. If the content moderation changes weren’t enough, Meta is also making waves with its plans to train AI using publicly available user content. Last year, Meta’s AI – dubbed Emu – will analyze user photos to enhance its Creative Tools. Chris Cox, Meta’s chief product officer, assured the public, "We don’t train on private stuff... We do train on things that are public." Women already have to worry about strangers misusing their images online. Now, Meta is essentially asking users to trust them with their likenesses for AI development. And while they promise not to do anything "inappropriate," the mere idea of a tech giant profiting off our selfies should raise red flags. So, why all of this now? Why scale back on censorship just as competitors like X and TikTok take off? Meta’s makeover might seem like a step in the right direction, but the timing and motivations behind these changes are hard to ignore. Editor-in-chief of The Federalist , Mollie Hemmingway, said it best in a post to X: "In no way should Zuckerberg be applauded for claiming to stop some of his draconian censorship that has nearly destroyed free speech in America. There need to be sincere apologies, massive restitution, transparency in the removal of filters that advantage left-wing press, etc." Last year, Zuckerberg admitted to censoring free speech. The mogul confessed that the Biden-Harris administration “repeatedly pressured” his company to censor certain Covid-19 content, including humor and satire. Reflecting on the experience, Zuckerberg stated , “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.