By Paris Marx
NEW YORK: Until recently, when you thought of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, you might have imagined a humanoid automaton whose intention to connect the world led to the destabilization of political structures and the degradation of our information ecosystem — not to mention that peculiar metaverse venture. Allegations that his platform facilitated Donald Trump’s election in 2016 resulted in a series of scandals that the company struggled to navigate — at least until a new billionaire emerged to challenge his reign.
By July 2023, some of Zuckerberg’s critics were starting to ease their condemnation as they identified a new foe. That month, Meta introduced Threads, its rival to an increasingly radical and conspiracy-laden X/Twitter. Zuckerberg’s opportunistic attempt to capitalize on Twitter’s struggles under its new ownership was reframed by some of Elon Musk’s critics as a statement that Meta was fundamentally different. Suddenly, a company with one of the worst reputations in tech was being celebrated as a kind of liberal champion.
Zuckerberg’s newfound admirers began to view him as Musk’s counterpoint — the superior social media tycoon — despite evidence showing that they represented two facets of the same issue. The billionaires even played into their perceived rivalry by joking about a potential physical confrontation, as the robotic Zuckerberg began to embrace an image as a mixed martial arts enthusiast. When he showcased a more muscular physique, complemented by loose-fitting shirts and gold chains, parts of social media erupted with excitement, suggesting that his days as one of Silicon Valley’s most detested executives were coming to an end. However, Zuckerberg was never the figure his new fans desired him to become.
In 2023, Meta lifted its suspension on Donald Trump, fully rescinding the last restrictions by July 12, 2024. The day after, Trump faced an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Zuckerberg reached out to Trump to express that he was “praying” for him, and less than a week later, he referred to Trump as a “badass,” making a point to clarify that this wasn’t a formal endorsement. At the same time, Zuckerberg opted not to renew his backing for local election initiatives after receiving backlash from Republicans, while Meta continued to roll back measures initially set to safeguard elections.
For some, Zuckerberg’s recent choices to replace fact-checkers with community notes, open the floodgates to hate speech, and eliminate diversity and trans-inclusive efforts might seem like a betrayal. But for those who weren’t swayed by the meticulously crafted public relations strategy surrounding his rebranding, this was hardly surprising.
Zuckerberg absorbed years of criticism before stepping into the ring for a more substantial fight. He faced condemnation from the political right for alleged suppression of conservative viewpoints — a questionable accusation — while he encountered genuine regulatory pressure from Democrats, especially after they regained power in 2021. Nevertheless, his methods of addressing this political scrutiny have evolved over time.
Throughout the 2010s, it was apparent that Zuckerberg wanted to project a socially progressive image, akin to many other tech leaders, despite the libertarian ethos prevailing in Silicon Valley. He publicly supported immigration issues while simultaneously allowing his company to promote contrasting narratives that were financially advantageous, and he funded charitable endeavors supposedly aimed at tackling such issues. This included a significant donation toward school privatization to divert attention from the release of The Social Network.
When political pressure intensified, Zuckerberg again sought to showcase that the company, then known as Facebook, was responding to this criticism. However, he was never willing to go far enough to genuinely tackle the underlying issues, partly because he misconstrued the insincere conservative outrage as legitimate. Conservative users may have faced more moderation than their liberal counterparts, but that was largely due to their greater propensity to use hate speech and express bigotted views that were subjected to scrutiny. Yet, the company was unwilling to recognize this reality.
Reporting from BuzzFeed News indicated that Zuckerberg was already intervening personally to shield extremist right-wing users in 2019, including Infowars founder Alex Jones. As one employee stated, “Mark personally didn’t like the punishment, so he changed the rules,” allowing various right-wing militant groups to remain on Facebook and organize for the insurrection on January 6, 2021. This event finally compelled the company to take more meaningful action, but many response initiatives proved to be short-lived.
The individual helping Zuckerberg restrain moderation of right-wing accounts was Joel Kaplan, a Republican operative serving as vice president of global public policy. There’s little doubt that Kaplan influenced Zuckerberg’s perspectives and the policies the company adopted, and his role is expected to grow further. Leading up to Zuckerberg’s significant announcement about moderation policies, Kaplan took over from Nick Clegg — the former Deputy Prime Minister of Britain — as president of global affairs. Kaplan wields considerable influence and has a strong rapport with Zuckerberg, although the CEO’s decisions shouldn’t be solely attributed to him.
A poorly titled profile of Zuckerberg, implying he was “done with politics,” published in the New York Times in September, offers valuable insights into the motivations behind his political shift. It describes Zuckerberg as fatigued by political pushback, yet harboring more resentment toward progressive politicians and employees at his philanthropic organization than toward right-wing political figures who also targeted him.
In particular, Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, rebuffed employees who anticipated their philanthropic initiative would take firmer stances in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the dismantling of abortion rights in the United States. Reports indicate that Zuckerberg currently identifies as a libertarian or “classical liberal,” expressing animosity toward regulation and “far-left progressivism,” including pro-Palestine campus protests, which he and Chan perceive as anti-Semitic.
Zuckerberg’s alignment with the political right should not come as a shock. Over the past decade, he has ascended to the position of the world’s third-richest individual. His status is secured by the dual-class share structure of Meta, which grants him a majority of voting power. Recently, he has embraced mixed martial arts, adopting a culture that tends to lean conservative. He has swiftly dismantled diversity initiatives at Meta, asserting that the company requires a more “masculine energy.”
Zuckerberg has been distancing himself from criticism and threats to his authority for some time; he has merely been searching for the right approach to free himself from it. His company has funded campaigns against TikTok to shift focus away from American social media, and he perceives the Trump administration as not just a means to alleviate pressure from the U.S. government but also as an opportunity to leverage its remaining influence to encourage other nations to relent. His social positioning offers a personal and commercial benefit in aligning with the political right, and he has recognized that conservatives are eager to embrace him as long as he undertakes corporate actions that satisfy their interests.
When Zuckerberg rebranded the company as Meta in 2021, it was not merely to divert attention from the disclosures by former employee Frances Haugen. In a brief video preceding the Facebook Connect keynote where he articulated his vision for the metaverse, he adopted a defiant tone. He claimed that for many — particularly his critics — there would never be “a good time to focus on the future.” He asserted that the real heroes in society were “those willing to stand up and say, ‘This is the future we want and I’m going to keep pushing and giving everything I’ve got to make this happen.’”
The future Zuckerberg envisions is one where tech billionaires like him can operate within the insulated environments of suburban tech campuses and Hawaiian retreats without facing scrutiny or accountability while proclaiming that gadgets like VR headsets and the metaverse will enhance their lives. It hardly matters that their tech aspirations are largely fanciful. Silicon Valley’s alliance with extremist right-wing elements will enable them to continue espousing how technology will save the world for a bit longer — all while simultaneously undermining life for the masses. (IPA Service)
Courtesy: Jacobin
