Mark Zuckerberg recently announced changes to Meta, the parent company of Instagram, Facebook and Threads, addressing past controversies over censorship and misinformation. And although his statements seem to have a calm demeanor and transparent tone, his credibility is questioned.
On Jan. 7, Zuckerberg announced Meta will end its algorithm-based fact checking process, and instead move to Community Notes, the method currently used by X.
He states, “It’s time to get back to our roots of free expression on Facebook and Instagram.”
In the video, he said government and legacy media have pushed for more and more censorship, both with political bias.
But the company’s current algorithm-based system is making too many mistakes, and he explains that even if just 1% of users' posts are censored, that’s still one million posts.
Because of this switch in tackling misinformation, his words versus his actions come into question, as the news came before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
This shift raises questions about whether this change is motivated by principles or political convenience. It also demonstrates unloyal attributes to long term principles of maintaining free expression through meta’s social platforms.
“I started social media to give people a voice,” he said
While this is true, as Meta has connected hundreds of millions of users worldwide, we as users should still be cautious about his most recent statements.
Is Zuckerberg noting principles of free speech to receive Trump's approval? Or was the company coerced into such extreme censorship measures during the Biden administration?
During the Biden administration, Meta implemented algorithms that could detect any possible misinformation related to the COVID-19 outbreak.
As Zuckerberg noted in the video, millions of meta user’s posts were detected in this "complex system" and flagged and labeled as misinformation.
The purpose of this new Community Notes method is to "identify notes that are helpful to a broad audience across perspectives."
While this method does pose a better outcome for fewer posts censored and more free speech, there is still room for question since Meta establishes whether a post is factual.
The announcement served as an attention grabber to the Trump administration, as he will be administering policy for the next four years.
Because Zuckerburg announced this just before President Trump was sworn in, the timing for these statements questions Meta's capability of being true to its word regarding its mission statements of emphasizing free expression and less content moderation.
Much like during COVID-19, if its statements were accurate today, we could've seen a backlash against the Biden administration making "complex systems" that censor users on specific topics. Instead, we saw steadfast cooperation, and Meta had become the forefront of censoring users from topics regarding COVID misinformation.
Overall, we should not forget that Meta is like any other company that pursues more likeness and credibility from its users. Therefore, these statements can be subject to change based on public approval. It’s important to stay cautious of these recent statements since they do not reflect a consistent action pattern from Meta's standpoint.
Abraham Hilu is a UF political science senior.
