Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Facebook’s New Free Speech Policy Shows Business Getting Back to Business

Published

10 minute read

Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets

Big tech seems to be getting out of the censorship business, and it’s about time. After years of increasingly awkward attempts to placate demands from activist groups and the government to suppress allegedly hateful speech and an amorphous category of “disinformation,” Facebook owner Meta is joining X (formerly Twitter) in substituting user-generated community notes on contested posts for top-down muzzling. There’s no doubt that political shifts in the U.S. heavily influenced the rediscovery of respect for free speech. But whatever the reason, we should celebrate the change and work to make it permanent.

Succumbing to Pressure To Censor

“After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in a January 7 video. “We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth. But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.”

“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,” he added.

The implication here is that Zuckerberg and company succumbed to pressure to suppress speech disfavored by the bien pensant class, but rather than satisfying critics, that just fed demand to memory-hole ever more discussion and ideas. The ranks of those demanding that Facebook act as a censor also expanded and became more ominous.

“Even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship,” Zuckerberg noted. “By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further.”

This isn’t the first time the Meta CEO has cited government pressure to act as an end-run around the First Amendment’s protections for speech. In an August 26, 2024, letter to the House Judiciary Committee, he revealed that “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.” He also admitted to suppressing reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop at the FBI’s request.

Succumbing to Pressure for Free Speech

By the time of that letter, the backlash against social media censorship was well underway. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X) led to the publication of the Twitter files, revealing government pressure on the platform to suppress dissenting ideas. The Facebook files revealed the same of Zuckerberg’s company. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty wrote that government pressure on tech platforms “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” These revelations vindicated complaints by critics of pandemic policy, conservatives, libertarians, and other dissenters that their efforts to communicate were being deleted, shadow-banned, and otherwise censored.

As early as 2020, Pew Research pollsters found “roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is very (37%) or somewhat (36%) likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable.”

Which is to say, tech companies’ efforts to escape pressure over allowing users to publish “misinformation” wildly backfired. They came under more pressure than ever from those who objected—often rightly—that they were just trying to share information that others didn’t like.

If pressure led to censorship, it has also led to its reversal. That’s especially clear as Republicans pushed to allow lawsuits over online muzzling and then-candidate (now President-elect) Donald Trump thuggishly threatened Zuckerberg with “life in prison” for his company’s activities.

Zuckerberg even acknowledges bowing to shifting political winds, saying, “the recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.”

Whatever Mark Zuckerberg’s actual beliefs about freedom of speech, having once given in to political pressure to censor, he’s now succumbing to political pressure to end censorship. As journalist and date-cruncher Nate Silver puts it, “perhaps it’s the right move for the wrong reasons.” It’s quite likely that the Meta CEO’s motivations are pragmatic rather than principled. But at least he’s making the right move.

Zuckerberg now says he’ll follow in the footsteps of Elon Musk, who was the first tech tycoon to push back against pressures for censorship, first in public statements and then in his acquisition of Twitter.

“First, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes, similar to X, starting in the U.S.,” he noted in his video statement. He also promised to get rid of restrictions on “topics like immigration and gender” that were previously subject to scrutiny for alleged wrongthink, focus the attention of automated filters on explicitly illegal content rather than general discourse, and stop deemphasizing political content. Facebook will also move its moderation teams out of the ideological hothouse of California to Texas—arguably just a different ideological hothouse, though one better aligned with a country that just voted as it did and generally favors free speech over Big Brother.

Meta Joins Other Companies, Steps Back from Political Alliances

In backing away from a default affiliation with one faction of American politics as well as the government, Zuckerberg joins not just Musk but also executives at other companies who are jettisoning brief flirtations with trendy causes.

“Walmart is ending some of its diversity programs, the latest big company to shift gears under pressure from a conservative activist,” The Wall Street Journal’s Sarah Nassauer reported in November. The article attributed the shift to public pressure which “has successfully nudged other companies including retailer Tractor Supply and manufacturers Ford and Deere to back away from diversity efforts and other topics.”

That report came after the election put Republicans back on top, but the cultural winds had already shifted direction. Bloomberg reported in March that “Wall Street’s DEI retreat has officially begun.” A few months later, the financial news service noted a decline in interest in environmental, social, and governance investment guidelines associated, like DEI, with the political left.

As in Zuckerberg’s case, it’s not obvious that the business executives in question had a sincere commitment to the causes they now reject, or that their principles, should they have any, have changed. Instead, they seem to belatedly recognize that allying with one faction in a divided society inevitably alienates others. That’s dangerous when the fortunes of factions inevitably rise and fall, and when potential customers can be found across the political spectrum.

By taking their companies out of the political fray and acknowledging their customers’ right to disagree with one another and with the government, Mark Zuckerberg and other business leaders can leave us room to work out our differences in a free society without worrying so much whether the people to whom we give our money are friends or foes.

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump Admin reports 75K federal workers have accepted buyout offer

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration confirmed that 75,000 federal employees have accepted its Deferred Resignation Program, a buyout offer allowing them to retain benefits and receive pay through September.

Key Details:

  • The Trump administration announced that approximately 75,000 federal employees have accepted its buyout offer.
  • The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) confirmed the number, which accounts for less than 5% of the federal workforce of 2.3 million.
  • The program, which provides extended benefits and pay through September, excluded military personnel, national security, immigration, and postal workers.

Diving Deeper:

The White House confirmed Wednesday night that around 75,000 federal employees opted into the Trump administration’s Deferred Resignation Program, a buyout initiative designed to reduce government workforce numbers while providing extended benefits for those who voluntarily resign.

The program, administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), originally set a February 6 deadline but was temporarily paused due to legal challenges from federal employee unions. However, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the unions lacked the legal standing to block the initiative, allowing the buyout deadline to proceed.

“As of 7:00 PM tonight, the program is now closed,” OPM spokesperson McLaurine Pinover said in a statement. “There is no longer any doubt: the Deferred Resignation Program was both legal and a valuable option for federal employees. This program was carefully designed, thoroughly vetted, and provides generous benefits so federal workers can plan for their futures.”

While the 75,000 participants represent less than 5% of the federal workforce, the move aligns with the Trump administration’s broader efforts to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic redundancy. The program was not open to military personnel, national security workers, immigration officers, or postal employees.

Despite initial resistance from federal employee unions, the White House and OPM argue that the program provides financial security and flexibility for those choosing to leave their positions. With the legal battle now settled, the administration considers the initiative a success in its push for a leaner and more efficient federal government.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Admin ends Biden’s war on gas stoves

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration has officially ended a Biden-era review that threatened restrictions on gas stoves, marking a decisive victory for consumer choice and energy freedom. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) confirmed it will no longer pursue regulations targeting gas-powered stovetops, shutting down a controversial effort spearheaded by Biden-appointed officials.

Key Details:

  • CPSC acting chairman Peter Feldman stated the agency is “out of the gas-stoves-banning business” and reaffirmed that the federal government should not dictate household appliance choices.
  • The Biden administration’s push to scrutinize gas stoves began in 2023, triggering widespread backlash from consumers, lawmakers, and industry leaders.
  • President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office to reverse Biden-era energy efficiency regulations and protect Americans’ freedom to choose their appliances.

Diving Deeper:

The Biden administration’s quiet war on gas stoves became public in early 2023 when then-CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. suggested that gas stoves posed a “hidden hazard” and floated the possibility of banning them. His remarks ignited a firestorm of opposition, with critics decrying the move as government overreach. While the CPSC later claimed it was merely seeking public input on the matter, the review process persisted for nearly two years, leaving open the possibility of future regulatory action.

However, that possibility is now dead. CPSC acting chairman Peter Feldman, appointed after President Trump’s inauguration, told the Washington Free Beacon that the agency has no intention of banning gas stoves. “In electing President Trump, the American people spoke loudly that the United States has no business telling American families how to cook their meals,” Feldman stated, effectively closing the door on any federal intervention against gas appliances.

The decision is another major blow to climate activists and progressive Democrats who have sought to phase out gas stoves in favor of electric alternatives. Several Democrat-led states, including New York, have already implemented bans on gas appliances in new constructions, citing environmental concerns. But at the federal level, Trump’s administration is taking swift action to roll back Biden-era regulatory overreach.

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order protecting consumers’ rights to choose their household appliances, part of his broader push to restore energy independence and dismantle Biden’s green energy mandates. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a vocal opponent of the gas stove crackdown, praised the move, noting that left-wing activists were behind the initial push for restrictions. Cruz’s Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, introduced in 2023, sought to prevent any future attempts at a federal ban.

Continue Reading

Trending

X