Author of novels about politics and technology; CEO, Board Member, Lawyer, Advisor, Investor
As further evidence that the socio-political pendulum in the United States is swinging back from progressive extremes, check out Mark Zuckerberg's comments today about the changes Meta is making to the content review policies on Facebook and Instagram to remove fact checkers: “Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created. What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.” So, what is Meta doing to offset the loss of these previously lauded fact checkers? They are replacing them with user-generated “community notes." If that sounds strangely familiar, it's what Elon Musk did at X (formerly known as Twitter)--a change that was widely criticized in the media and by major advertisers who canceled their ads because of fears about having their brands associated with hate speech. (Zuckerberg did acknowledge that Meta's new policy included a “tradeoff” in that more harmful content will appear on the platform as a result of the content moderation changes.) While it's easy to attribute Zuckerberg's epiphany to defensive posturing ahead of the new presidential administration (see also Zuckerberg's addition of Trump ally and UFC CEO Dana White to Meta's board), the elimination of frequently biased fact-checking is a positive change and a boost for bolstering free speech on social media. As Meta’s newly appointed Chief of Global Affairs Joel Kaplan told Fox on Tuesday, Meta’s partnerships with third-party fact checkers were “well intentioned at the outset but there’s just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact check and how.” I have been a First Amendment fan since law school. Although I abhor the garbage that circulates on sites like X (from the left and the right, I should add), these sites are like the public square where the only practical solution to opposing viewpoints (political, scientific or social) is more speech not less. The First Amendment already fails to protect the worst speech. I am not willing to trust a government, business or charitable group to decide what else I can say. Free speech can be informative, persuasive and inspirational. It can also be offensive, inconsiderate and hurtful. But it's the best price we can pay to ensure the freedom it provides. Whatever the emotional cost of enduring its downsides, free speech enables us to fight tyranny, question legal, scientific and moral authority, argue for change and use words rather than violence to settle our differences. #Meta #Facebook #Instagram #X #Socialmedia #FirstAmendment #freespeech
