The New York Times recently ran a one–two punch of stories about the ostensibly softening political involvement of Mark Zuckerberg and Meta — where by “punch”, I mean “gentle caress”.
Sheera Frenkel and Mike Isaac on Meta “distanc[ing] itself from politics”:
On Facebook, Instagram and Threads, political content is less heavily featured. App settings have been automatically set to de-emphasize the posts that users see about campaigns and candidates. And political misinformation is harder to track on the platforms after Meta removed transparency tools that journalists and researchers used to monitor the sites.
[…]
“It’s quite the pendulum swing because a decade ago, everyone at Facebook was desperate to be the face of elections,” said Katie Harbath, chief executive of Anchor Change, a tech consulting firm, who previously worked at Facebook.
Facebook used to have an entire category of “Government and Politics” advertising case studies through 2016 and 2017; it was removed by early 2018. I wonder if anything of note happened in the intervening months. Anything at all.
All of this discussion has so far centred U.S. politics; due to the nature of reporting, that will continue for the remainder of this piece. I wonder if Meta is ostensibly minimizing politics everywhere. What are the limits of that policy? Its U.S. influence is obviously very loud and notable, but its services have taken hold — with help — around the world. No matter whether it moderates those platforms aggressively or it deprioritizes what it identifies as politically sensitive posts, the power remains U.S.-based.
Theodore Schleifer and Mike Isaac, in the other Times article about Zuckerberg personally, under a headline claiming he “is done with politics”, wrote about the arc of his philanthropic work, which he does with his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan:
Two years later, taking inspiration from Bill Gates, Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan established the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a philanthropic organization that poured $436 million over five years into issues such as legalizing drugs and reducing incarceration.
[…]
Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan were caught off guard by activism at their philanthropy, according to people close to them. After the protests over the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, a C.Z.I. employee asked Mr. Zuckerberg during a staff meeting to resign from Facebook or the initiative because of his unwillingness at the time to moderate comments from Mr. Trump.
The incident, and others like it, upset Mr. Zuckerberg, the people said, pushing him away from the foundation’s progressive political work. He came to view one of the three central divisions at the initiative — the Justice and Opportunity team — as a distraction from the organization’s overall work and a poor reflection of his bipartisan point-of-view, the people said.
This foundation, like similar ones backed by other billionaires, appears to be a mix of legitimate interests for Chan and Zuckerberg, and a vehicle for tax avoidance. I get that its leadership tries to limit its goals and focus on specific areas. But to be in any way alarmed by internal campaigning? Of course there are activists there! One cannot run a charitable organization claiming to be “building a better future for everyone” without activism. That Zuckerberg’s policies at Meta is an issue for foundation staff points to the murky reality of billionaire-controlled charitable initiatives.
Other incidents piled up. After the 2020 election, Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan were criticized for donating $400 million to the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life to help promote safety at voting booths during pandemic lockdowns. Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan viewed their contributions as a nonpartisan effort, though advisers warned them that they would be criticized for taking sides.
The donations came to be known as “Zuckerbucks” in Republican circles. Conservatives, including Mr. Trump and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, blasted Mr. Zuckerberg for what they said was an attempt to increase voter turnout in Democratic areas.
This is obviously a bad faith criticism. In what healthy democracy would lawmakers actively campaign against voter encouragement? Zuckerberg ought to have stood firm. But it is one of many recent clues as to Zuckerberg’s thinking.
My pet theory is Zuckerberg is not realigning on politics — either personally or as CEO of Meta — out of principle; I am not even sure he is changing at all. He has always been sympathetic to more conservative voices. Even so, it is important for him to show he is moving toward overt libertarianism. In the United States, politicians of both major parties have been investigating Meta for antitrust concerns. Whether the effort by Democrats is in earnest is a good question. But the Republican efforts have long been dominated by a persecution complex where they believe U.S. conservative voices are being censored — something which has been repeatedly shown to be untrue or, at least, lacking context. If Zuckerberg can convince Republican lawmakers he is listening to their concerns, maybe he can alleviate the bad faith antitrust concerns emanating from the party.
I would not be surprised if Zuckerberg’s statements encourage Republican critics to relent. Unfortunately, as in 2016, that is likely to taint any other justifiable qualms with Meta as politically motivated. Recall how even longstanding complaints about Facebook’s practices, privacy-hostile business, and moderation turned into a partisan argument. The giants of Silicon Valley have every reason to expect ongoing scrutiny. After Meta’s difficult 2022, it is now worth more than ever before — the larger and more influential it becomes, the more skepticism it should expect.
Hannah Murphy, Financial Times:
Some suggest Zuckerberg has been emboldened by X’s Musk.
“With Elon Musk coming and literally saying ‘fuck you’ to people who think he shouldn’t run Twitter the way he has, he is dramatically lowering the bar for what is acceptable behaviour for a social media platform,” said David Evan Harris, the Chancellor’s public scholar at California University, Berkeley and a former Meta staffer. “He gives Mark Zuckerberg a lot of permission and leeway to be defiant.”
This is super cynical. It also feels, unfortunately, plausible for both Zuckerberg and Meta as a company. There is a vast chasm of responsible corporate behaviour which opened up in the past two years and it seems like it is giving room to already unethical players to shine.
See Also: Karl Bode was a guest on “Tech Won’t Save Us” to discuss Zuckerberg’s P.R. campaign with Paris Marx.