Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have taken a notable U-turn in his stance on Donald Trump. The decision to end collaboration with external fact-checkers on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads is more than a political statement – it has strategic and business reasons.
In a time when the US government and its tech giants are under constant public pressure, it’s crucial for Zuckerberg to position himself well in an increasingly polarized political climate. The move to get closer to Trump is likely to be economically beneficial for Meta, especially with upcoming political changes and business prospects in the US.
Zuckerberg’s announcement to end fact-checking is a surprising turn of events. Meta initially focused on combating misinformation, aiming to protect its platforms and strengthen user trust.
The closure of this department for external checks raises concerns that Meta may become more susceptible to the spread of misinformation – at least in the US.
In a short video, Zuckerberg emphasized that free speech will be given more weight, and Meta “made too many mistakes to continue censoring.” The public apology for Meta’s past censorship policy shows that Zuckerberg is willing to part with progressive values that once defined the company.
The true reason behind this decision may be less idealistic and more pragmatic. Zuckerberg and Meta need to reposition themselves to avoid conflict with the future US government.
Trump, who repeatedly criticized tech giants during his presidency, has successfully put pressure on companies and their CEOs. Meta’s past political censorship and refusal to allow Trump’s presence on its platforms had led to a deep rift with the former president. Zuckerberg’s about-face now shows a new willingness to cooperate.
Meta’s CEO is not alone in this shift. Other tech CEOs, like Jeff Bezos of Amazon or Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, have also shown a more conciliatory approach to Trump. Bezos, who previously spent a million dollars on Trump’s inauguration, has become a more significant player in US politics.
While Meta may profit from the current US political landscape, the course change also carries risks. The move to get close to Trump could spark new conflicts in other markets, particularly in Europe, where strict regulations on disinformation and data protection may pose new challenges.
The EU Commission has already sounded a warning about the removal of fact-checkers. A further legal blow against the company could further strain Meta’s already fragile relationship with European regulatory bodies.
However, the decision to end fact-checking is not only about reading the political wind in the US, but also about remaining competitive in the tech industry. Meta still earns the majority of its revenue from advertising on Facebook and Instagram. A clear stance on the government can reduce the pressure on the company, leading to a more stable financial future.
For Zuckerberg and other tech executives, it’s less about political principles and more about business pragmatism. A good relationship with the government and the reduction of antitrust investigations or regulatory burdens could benefit Meta and other companies in the long run. Yet, this political proximity also carries the risk of being seen as opportunistic or weak, especially in a global market that increasingly views the practices of US tech giants with skepticism.