On January 7, 2025, and in the days following, the founder and CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, made a series of statements that framed Meta’s previous and future content policy with an evidently strategic intention. The change of content moderation policy, as described in three comprehensive points in his personal announcement on his own platforms, may even sound reasonable, as discussed below. However, the reasoning and the framing of these changes appear to show that Meta is up to something entirely different from just further optimizing its curation of content on its platforms.
The announcement included that Meta will a) “get rid of fact-checkers” and implement a “Community Notes” model, similar to the one that exists on Elon Musk’s X; b) remove restrictions on subjects like immigration and gender to foster discussion; c) change the settings of the automatic filters so that they proactively block only illegal content and grave violations of their terms, and wait for the notice in other cases, and d) bring back political content on its platforms. In addition, Zuckerberg decided e) to relocate the content moderation team from California to Texas, which may raise less concern about ideological bias within the team “at least in the US”, and f) to push back on governments that require stronger restrictions, asserting that “now we have the opportunity to restore free expression” with the help of the US government.
However, the presentation and framing of these plans, included biased and misleading details, raising questions about the strategy’s true objectives.
Zuckerberg began his speech by saying that he started to build social media to give people a voice. In reality, the initial idea was to steal the ID photos of undergraduate college women without their permission or even knowledge, and have them ranked by users based on their attractiveness. The subsequent Facebook product was also subject to serious accusations by college mates who claimed the idea to be their own.
Zuckerberg also held that “the problem with complex systems is that they make mistakes”, adding that Meta would now focus on “reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms”, implying that governmental pressure was the primary cause of these mistakes. Later, in a podcast, he added that the White House “repeatedly pressured” Facebook to remove certain COVID-19 content, including humour and satire.
How Can Zuckerberg’s Statements Be Interpreted?
There are three primary interpretations of Zuckerberg’s actions and rhetoric:
Interpretation 1: Submission to Trump
Some observers argue that Zuckerberg’s actions reflect apprehension about Trump’s potential influence. This view gains traction particularly in light of the behaviour of other prominent figures like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Zuckerberg’s past interactions with Trump underscore this narrative: he previously clashed with Trump, most notably by deplatforming him for over two years following the January 6 insurrection. Additionally, in March 2024, Trump publicly labelled Facebook “an enemy of the people”, accusing it of dishonesty and undermining US elections. Following these remarks, Meta’s market value dropped significantly, losing 4% initially, followed by an additional 1.2% dip after Trump reiterated his accusations in a subsequent post on X. In total, Meta lost over $60 billion in market value.
While this financial impact is significant, Zuckerberg’s larger concern might be the potential repercussions of a Trump presidency. A sitting president with executive powers could take concrete actions against Meta.
Zuckerberg’s earlier decisions also support this interpretation. For example, during Trump’s presidency, Zuckerberg insisted on his decision not to remove Trump’s controversial post, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”. In contrast, Twitter flagged the post with a warning label in 2020 (see also here). Despite significant internal backlash, with employees accusing him of betraying the company’s stated principles, Zuckerberg defended his decision. As one employee noted, Zuckerberg had promised a zero-tolerance policy for calls to violence, regardless of the source: “Zuck has told us over and over that calls to violence would not be tolerated on the platform, even if they were by the President of the United States”.
However, fear of Trump’s power, while plausible, does not fully explain Zuckerberg’s strategy. In the past, Zuckerberg’s approach to leading Facebook suggests boldness rather than timidity. Facebook’s early motto, “Move fast and break things”, epitomises a daring, even reckless, approach to growth and innovation.
Interpretation 2: Genuine Commitment to Free Speech
Another interpretation is that Zuckerberg sincerely believes in the principles he espouses. However, this explanation falters under scrutiny as well. Historical evidence suggests that Meta’s moderation practices are inconsistent with a genuine commitment to free expression. For instance:
- Trump’s Ban: In 2020, banning Trump indefinitely from the platform was a unilateral decision by Meta, not compelled by the EU or the Biden administration. Meta’s own Oversight Board (FOB) later criticised this action as inconsistent with the company’s terms of service, which allowed either a permanent ban or a suspension for a fixed period, but not an indefinite suspension. Following this guidance, Meta then suspended Trump’s account for two years.
- Oversight Board: The creation of Meta’s own Oversight Board reflects the company’s recognition of a need for external accountability. The Oversight Board’s mission is to make principled decisions based on international legal standards and provide an independent review of Meta’s content moderation. Established in 2018, during the Trump administration, it cannot be attributed to control by any external or “vicious” forces.
- Content Moderation History: Meta’s moderation history reveals a tendency toward overly aggressive actions, often removing artistic or socially valuable content, such as the famous Napalm Girl photograph, and more recently, mistakenly removing LGQBT+ content. Additionally, Facebook aggressively removed “Stop the Steal” content shortly before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, citing “continued attempts to organize events against the outcome of the US presidential election that can lead to violence”.
- Stricter Standards Than Law: Meta’s content moderation often follows stricter standards than those required by law, reflecting the company’s desire to maintain control over the platform. The narrative of protecting users from censorship therefore seems disingenuous. Zuckerberg’s invocation of free speech thus appears to be aimed more at shielding Meta from accountability than at safeguarding users’ rights.
Zuckerberg’s logic shows flaws in other respects, too:
- Policy Simplifications: Simplifying the content moderation policies does not necessarily lead to fewer removals. Depending on algorithmic settings, simplification could result in even more content being removed. The more complex the algorithm is, the better it can separate the wheat from the chaff.
- Alignment with European Values: In fact, much of what Meta now proclaims perfectly aligns with European policy values. For instance, policy director Kaplan stated: “if you can say it on TV, [if] you say it on the floor of Congress, you certainly ought to be able to say it on Facebook and Instagram without fear of censorship”. Authenticity and trust issues in fact-checking are also well-known challenges currently being addressed, with constructive solutions from innovative companies like Meta, being very welcome. Moreover, blanket restrictions on subjects like immigration and gender, or the use of simple automatic content-blocking filters, have never been recommended
These considerations make Zuckerberg’s complaints of “censorship” appear rather hypocritical. Furthermore, the cases mentioned above support the view that Zuckerberg is not a man of principle. Consider the founding of Facebook, the treatment of incumbent vs. non-incumbent presidents, and the stories of former employees like Joaquin Candela and Frances Haugen, who worked on improving the company’s ethical standards only to have their efforts deliberately ignored. So let’s look at the third option.
Interpretation 3: Strategic Plans Using Trump as a Puppet
A third interpretation is that Zuckerberg is strategically leveraging Trump’s influence to challenge European regulatory frameworks, which impose stricter obligations on platforms to protect users’ rights during moderation and mandate due diligence in providing safe services. This tactic aligns with Meta’s broader interests, particularly given ongoing investigations by the European Commission (EC) into major platforms, including Meta. These investigations address issues such as:
- Flagging illegal content (Article 14)
- User redress and internal complaint mechanisms (Article 16, Article 20)
- Deceptive advertising (Article 26)
- The lack of effective third-party tools for monitoring civic discourse and elections, especially ahead of the European Parliament elections (Article 34–35).
The stakes are high, as these investigations could result in substantial fines and stricter enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA’s due diligence obligations for ensuring safe services sharply contrast with the US approach, which prioritises corporate free speech rights over user protections. The US legal framework, shaped by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, grants platforms broad immunity for user-generated content while allowing discretionary moderation.
To put this in context, we need to understand how the American First Amendment jurisprudence applies to platform providers. Meta, after all, invokes its own constitutional right to freedom of speech, a right recognized by the US Constitution and mainstream legal interpretation. However, an online platform is neither a press nor a content provider. As an intermediary, it has its own rights and obligations, which are currently being formed. The US regulated this in 1996 through Section 230 of the CDA, establishing that service providers are not liable for third-party content, whether moderated or not, thereby granting broader immunity than the European regulatory framework. However, the CDA was passed in an era before online platforms. It applies to hosting providers, whereas platforms do significantly more: they algorithmically govern and curate the speech that they transmit. Addressing this change, the DSA outlines detailed procedural rules to protect user rights during content moderation and imposes due diligence obligations on platforms to provide safe services. The key difference between the European and the US normative approach lies in whose rights are prioritised: the EU protects the rights of the uploader while the US makes no clear distinction between the rights of companies and individuals. This benefits companies – in this case, online platforms – by allowing them to control users’ activity, and assert corporate freedom of expression at the expense of user freedom.
Thus, the issue is not about protecting users from censorship. On the contrary: it is about freeing Meta from its obligations to curate a safe environment in an accountable way while also respecting the rights of those who post content.
By instrumentalising Trump, Zuckerberg may aim to elevate these regulatory disputes into a geopolitical issue, using US diplomatic pressure to shield Meta.
This aim is further emphasized by his statements: “We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” He also stated that the US government has not done enough to protect its technology industry, leaving too much power in the hands of foreign regulators. He complained that the European Union has fined technology companies more than $30 billion over the past 20 years.
Zuckerberg’s further strategic decisions also indicate his cosying up to Trump, such as appointing Dana White, CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and a longtime friend of Trump, to Meta’s board, and donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund.
Conclusion
After examining the three interpretations, we conclude that the historical facts of Meta’s policy and Zuckerberg’s past behaviour and statements suggest that he is: a) bold, but b) strategically aligning with actual and direct manifestations of power, making him unlikely to adhere to rigorous moral principles. Instead, he c) follows the financial interests of his company without moral reservations. This makes our third interpretation the most plausible, namely, that he is fuelling Trump’s confrontational stance to leverage political influence in resisting European regulation. If successful, this strategy could similarly weaken the application of other elements of the digital package, such as the AI Act and the DMA. This strategy poses a significant risk to the EU’s digital governance framework, especially under a US administration inclined toward confrontation.
Epilogue
From a logical standpoint, safeguarding public discourse would be in the best interests of market participants. If the democratic process fails, the political environment can turn unfavourable even for influential market players, as authoritarian governments are more likely to put pressure on media companies and platforms. Unless, of course, those actors are on very good terms with the ruler and share his political and economic interests. Isn’t it interesting that merely twenty years after the emergence of platforms – initially bottom-up and hyper-democratic networks – we are witnessing the rise of political clientelism? This is the very phenomenon we are fighting against within the traditional media landscape, yet it is now occurring on an even more blatant scale. Just as with traditional media power – the fourth estate – it is not entirely clear who is using whom.
Platforms now wield power comparable to state authorities in terms of their impact. Consequently, similar to state authority, mechanisms for checks and balances are necessary to regulate this power. Ironically, these developments may signal that the time has come for the European Union to start drafting a new legal instrument – one that would safeguard the pluralism, freedom and independence of online platforms.
