Zuckerberg Has Bent the Knee to Trump: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decision at the behest of Brendan Carr, Donald Trump’s choice to lead the FCC, to replace fact-checking on his social networks with a Community Notes-type system like X’s is the latest in a series of moves following the replacement of Nick Clegg by Republican lobbyist Joel Kaplan as chief global affairs officer to curry favor with the incoming president.

Plus ça change: in a company as appallingly irresponsible as Meta, fact-checking was a joke anyway, relying as it did on poorly developed algorithms and barely observed procedures, and a system based on oversight by the user community will be equally ineffective, and will likely generate even more problems.

Solutions such as X’s Community Notes are not inherently bad, indeed it could be argued that moving from moderators to such a model could be a step in the right direction, because it’s not the job of social networks to check facts. Community participation systems tend to generate greater diversity of perspectives and fewer accusations of ideological or political bias: a system based on multiple contributors may appear less biased and more objective. In addition, it fosters user empowerment and can lead to wider coverage in terms of languages, cultures and contexts, as well as costing a great deal less than employing hordes of fact-checkers. At the same time, the transition to automated and community systems is likely to drive innovation in language models, text analysis and disinformation detection.

Which isn’t to say that community-based systems don’t have their problems: firstly, because they depend on the active participation of users; they are susceptible to misinterpretation or factually incorrect information, and they are also vulnerable to organized groups reinforcing false narratives or publishing fake news, especially on polarizing issues. In addition, it is difficult to identify direct responsibility in case of errors or problems, which tends to erode public trust. In this case, and given the low level of user engagement with Meta’s platforms, community involvement is probably very low, which would make the system ineffective in identifying and flagging misinformation or harmful content.

When it comes to topics such as science, economics, technology or international politics, relying on people who should have specific training to evaluate complex information (but don’t always), will generally provide a better result than amateurs.

We tend to be more skeptical of the veracity of social networks based on community participation, creating perceptions of less commitment to the quality and veracity of content. In addition, Zuckerberg’s argument that “in Europe there are more and more laws that institutionalize censorship and make it difficult to create any innovative project,” has put him on a collision course with the eurozone authorities, who in addition to anticipating regulatory problems, have defended themselves by saying categorically that “social networks are not censored in Europe,” and have announced that they will be keeping a close eye on the efficiency of content moderation measures.

Internally, the changes have also brought problems. The company has deleted comments on internal forums that criticized the end of fact-checking and the appointment of Dana White, UFC CEO and a long time friend of Donald Trump, with many staffers saying the company was sending a clear message that the facts no longer matter dressed up as a “victory for free speech.” Other comments claim that “simply absolving ourselves of our duty to at least try to create a safe and respectful platform is taking a really sad direction.”

Social researcher danah boyd has lashed out at Meta in an article titled “The Ministry of Empowerment”, stating: “this measure is not about freedom of expression, but about allowing some people to harm others through vitriol and providing them with the tools of amplification to help them.” Rusty Foster’s article, “Heart of Zuckness”, is also extremely recommended, and way harsher…

This is classic Meta: all effect and no substance. Mark Zuckerberg never had the slightest intention of content moderation policies serving any purpose, and only adopted them as an aesthetic and legal imperative. Now, in removing them, he says Meta, Facebook, Threads and Instagram will be overseen by their communities because they do not want to act as censors… and they will continue to do it equally badly or worse, because quite simply, he couldn’t care less. All that matters is getting people to spend time on these platforms and watch a lot of ads. Problematic content, problematic behavior by other users? That’s not Zuckerberg’s problem. He’s a champion of free speech.

Mark Zuckerberg was already a dangerous, irresponsible character; now he has bent the knee to Trump we can only fear for the worst. Be afraid, be very afraid.

(En español, aquí)

—

This post was previously published on MEDIUM.COM.

***

You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project:

White Fragility: Talking to White People About Racism

Escape the “Act Like a Man” Box

The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer

What We Talk About When We Talk About Men

—

Photo credit: iStock.com