Meta continues to change course with its main applications.
In an unexpected announcement, the company is ditching 3rd party fact checkers and moving to a community notes model, the one implemented by X. This is a big step for a company that was known for its censorship over the last couple years.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, confirmed that the government pushed the company to censor certain topics. He also acknowledged Meta complied.
SInce the release of the "Twitter Files" the relationship between the United States government under the Biden administration and social media platforms has started to emerge. With a new administration taking over, it is likely that further investigation will occur, perhaps by the Department of Justice.
Much of Silicon Valley is backtracking. Many technology CEOs are donating to Trump's inauguration Say what you want, they might like their ideology but they love making money.
Zuckerberg is one, of many, who is adept at reading the political winds.
Meta Goes Community Notes Route
Did Zuckerberg become a free speech advocate and adopt the idea of, perhaps, turning Facebook into a town hall?
It is hard to say what his motivation is yet we do get a sense from another announcement.
In addition to the removal of 3rd party fact checkers, we get this:
It is lifting restrictions around “topics that are part of mainstream discourse,” instead focusing enforcement on “illegal and high-severity violations” in areas like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams; and
Users will be encouraged to take a “personalized” approach to political content, making way for considerably more opinion and slant in people’s feeds that fits whatever they want to see.
To me, this seems like a simply move to counter the competition. Zuckerberg probably got tired of certain discussions taking place on X. The restrictions meant a great deal of political conversation was absent. In the era of data, this is not to Meta's liking.
X is being tagged as the place people go for news. This makes sense if other platforms are restricting what can be posted. YouTube, owned by Google, still sees content creators censoring the words they use to avoid demonetization.
Like any of these CEOs, altruistic motives are not at the top of the list. We are in a world where data is king. All forms of engagement are benefiticial from this standpoint.
Is It Political?
What is driving the change? Many feel that the new administration is pushing Zuckerberg in this direction since he faces potential backlash.
Certainly, there is likely a component of surivival. Most companies seek to get along with whatever administation is in place. Tim Cook came under fire for donating to the Trump inauguration. This comes after he met with the President-elect last month.
Apple does a lot of business in China, including having their phones manufactured there. Obviously, Cook has a vested interest in the administration's actions on China.
Zuckerberg has been at the helm of Meta for a long time. He made his share of mistakes yet he is a smart cookie. The performance of the company stands on its own merit, something that he had a large hand in.
At this point, social media is nothing more than a distraction. Meta doesn't want to draw any unwanted attention due to its descisions regarding the social media applications. The company knows that AI is the future and it is placing an enormous bet on that outcome.
Of course, this is bound to get the attention of all governments. Operating in the background is not a bad approach right now. Let Sam Altman be the most hated CEO in Silicon Valley. In fact, Zuckerberg has come out against OpenAI's move to a for-profit organization.
Will This Enhance Facebook?
I am still astonished that Facebook still have the user base it does. Instagram is something I understand since it is very popular with Millennials and GenZ. Facebook is a Boomer platform and I guess they keep it going.
That said, Meta eliminates a host of headaches on this one. The company was attacked for the 3rd party moderation. This was magnified by the fact that certain ideological biases were overrepresented.
With this decision, Zuckerberg can step back and let the community police itself. This is what X did, removing the need to defend (from a company standpoint). Individuals can decide if this was politiically motivated or if it just makes business sense.
Facebook already brought about negativity from the tech community with its announcement that it is going to allow AI characters on the platform to stimulate conversation. As I spelled out, this is simply a move to generate more data.
Whether you like him or not, Zuckerberg has no problem going against the grain while stepping on a few toes. His insight is often accurate although he tends to be a bit early with his moves. The entire metaverse fiasco (and expense) is a prime example. It is likely he is repeating history with this step. The world is not quite ready to embrace AI to this degree. That said, with the pace of things, Zuck might not have to wait long.
Things are changing rapidly and these technology companies are at the forefront of it. Meta appears to be determined not to be left behind.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Believe it or not, Facebook has great GenZ penetration, it's not just boomers up there, X isn't as popular as people think amongst the average GenZ outside the United States.
Frankly speaking, X is majorly popular for Crypto(web3 content), politics(recently I think) and hate content(it's original niche), three things the average social media user isn't looking for.
Its Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, as an ideal social platform for most people.
Now about free speech, it doesn't really matter what Mark wants, all these social platforms, including X cannot bare the cost of free speech.
At the end of the day, it's all just a game of profit and control, and at the top of the list of people wanting those two things is the government.
Sadly I feel this is an accurate apparaisal of X...
While he may have had a "come to Jesus" moment when it comes to free speech, it seems unlikely. Only time will tell whether this is a real change or simply a move with the changing tides.
Nah. He is pragmatic and doing what most CEOs do.
They have to work with whatever administration is in power. That is simply the reality that these companies have to navigate.
Not a fan of people in power being a leaf in the wind. Plant some roots and stand for something.
My dad always said; "Follow the money honey..." I think your right, that most of it is driven by gaining market share. When Free SPeech is the popular narrative, it is in every businesses best interest to get on that train...
Ideology only works as long as it isnt affecting the bottom line. When the CEO has to answer questions about a bad quarter, and that happens repeatedly, problems arise.
About time they get policed in their policing, understanding that they don't corner the market on "true"
Great content
!PIZZA
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@danzocal(8/10) tipped @taskmaster4450
The right way.
Ideology and money, interesting play.
Does it imply that many don't care and they just do business as usual?
Since the time I experienced such censorship, my activity on Facebook has decreased almost 99%.