Facebook is trying to realign itself to stay relevant. But will it go beyond paying mere lip service to those demanding freedom?
By Rachel Marsden, a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
By Rachel Marsden, a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
rachelmarsden.com
FILE PHOTO: Mark Zuckerberg. © Celal Gunes / Anadolu via Getty Images Why are some folks gobbling up the notion that having the newly restored right to fire off as many “c**ts,” *d**ks,” and “a*****es” as you want on Facebook is the best thing for free speech since the Magna Carta? Facebook’s safe space for easily triggered mental midgets is now supposed to suddenly transform into a beacon of free speech and debate. But only for some. Sort of. Who are apparently now free to call transgenderism a mental illness, for example. Everyone else will have to wait for their potential future liberation from the virtual hall monitor. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook and its parent company, Meta, has just announced that audiences won’t be subjected to thought policing through fact-checking anymore. Well, American audiences, at least. And not by professional gatekeepers designated specifically for the task. The language patrol will also apparently unclench a bit. “Starting in the US, we are ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to a Community Notes model,” the company announced, citing the open collaborative model of Elon Musk’s X Platform. The move comes in the wake of Zuckerberg’s pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago where he met with incoming US President-elect Donald Trump – who was himself banned and restricted by Meta until last summer – and his perpetual sidekick, self-styled “free speech absolutist” Musk. Meta’s statement cites “societal and political pressure to moderate content,” claiming that it “has gone too far.” You think? It took Zuckerberg until August 2024 to admit to a congressional committee that “in 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire,” and that it led to “choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today.”
Read more In the same letter, he said the FBI warned his team ahead of the 2020 US presidential election about a “Russian disinformation operation” involving the Biden family and Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, served. Zuckerberg says he now realizes that the story turned out to be legit, and not Russian fake news as the FBI claimed – but only after the New York Post dared to counter the official narrative that Facebook had colluded in protecting by censoring debate. Until now, designated “professionals” in various countries have been working with Meta to ensure narrative compliance. In Canada, for example, partner AFP Fact Check has recently posted that there’s “no evidence linking methane inhibitors for cows to human health problems.” It’s a reference to the Western establishment’s new strategy, introduced in Canada and elsewhere, of suppressing cow farts with feed additive called Bovaer 10 – all in a valiant effort to save the planet from climate change. Some people have been asking whether the fart suppressor could somehow end up in milk or meat. But the fact checkers say that the government says it’s safe. So case closed. Until it isn’t, of course. But that would require alternative information to come to light, as is always the case when the public finds out after the fact that something officially authorized was in fact problematic. But good luck having that debate on Facebook, where you risk posting something that ends up being scarlet-lettered with an official message from the online Gestapo constantly scouring the website via algorithms for wrongthink. At least in the US, this is all now supposed to be ending precisely where it began in the wake of the 2016 presidential election when Democrats and other assorted anti-Trumpers were in hysterics over the idea that Russia singlehandedly got Trump elected through social media. That led to pressure on outlets like Meta to censor fake news as defined by establishment-friendly fact checkers.
Read more The slippery censorship slope then led to a move by Meta to then prioritize approved “trustworthy” information sources in 2018 – a system that expanded further under the pretext of the Covid fiasco in 2020. After the Capitol riots in January 2021, Facebook dumped Trump’s account indefinitely, citing the need to prevent violence and disinformation. And in September 2024, amid the most recent US presidential election campaign, Meta globally banned Russian media accounts, like RT, citing “foreign interference” – a move that effectively reduces the odds of users being exposed to unauthorized or alternative views that risk challenging the status quo. RT news articles posted on Facebook warn the user to proceed with caution when reading. No such call to engage critical thinking accompanies Western news sources, because they’re always in unfailing alignment with the objective truth. There’s no evidence yet that anyone outside the US will be spared from Meta’s digital thought safety patrol. Or even that Americans still won’t be subjected to less obvious censorship of information sources. France is straight-up expressing concern over the rule loosening anyway. “France remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that META, along with other platforms, comply with their obligations under European law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA),” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, citing the same European law that led to the EU threatening Musk with 150 bureaucratic monitors ahead of his planned online interview with German right-wing populist leader Alice Weidel, currently polling as the voters’ favored choice for chancellor ahead of next month’s parliamentary elections. “Freedom of expression, a fundamental right protected in France and Europe, should not be confused with a right to virality, which would permit the dissemination of inauthentic content to millions of users without any filtering or moderation,” the French government said. Yeah, well, it would also mean the dissemination of debate and an increased opportunity for contributions of all kinds.
Read more “France reiterates its support for civil society actors worldwide who are committed to defending and reinforcing democracies against information manipulation and destabilizing actions by authoritarian regimes,” France writes. Like yours, perhaps? The regime that’s clinging to the government levers with a prime minister handpicked by President Macron who didn’t even run in the election, and whose government sidelined both the populist party on the left with the most seats and the one on the right with the most votes? Online state-backed censorship and Big Tech collusion by actors like Facebook can be credited with the growing disconnect between establishment rhetoric and lived reality across the Western world. The kind that leads to regime change at the voting booth. It’s also responsible for the shock and awe experienced by online bubble-dwellers, maintained in a state of ignorance by the digital information Gestapo, and who can’t comprehend how the rest of the world that doesn’t share their digital safe space could possibly not think or vote like they do. Facebook is trying to realign in the interest of staying relevant. But the jury’s still out on whether it can actually go far enough or fast enough beyond paying mere lip service to the populist rise across that West that demands the free flow of information and ideas. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
