In a recent speech, Mark Zuckerberg announced a return to the “roots of free speech” on Facebook and Instagram. He promised to eliminate fact-checkers, simplify content policies, and reduce censorship. But do these changes amount to an acknowledgment of past political influence and censorship of certain voices? Could Zuckerberg be criminally liable for allegedly supporting censorship that silenced certain voices?
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and Meta CEO, said in a recent video announced a return to the “roots of freedom of expression” on Facebook and Instagram. Among other things, he announced the elimination of fact-checkers and the introduction of a “Community Notes” system, the simplification of content policies, and the reduction of the use of filters for moderating content. These changes were presented as an effort to reduce errors and censorship on the platforms. However, the question arises whether these announcements amount to an admission of past political influence and censorship of certain voices, and whether Zuckerberg could face legal consequences for this.
Facebook has come under scrutiny over its content moderation practices in recent years. In particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, there have been allegations of censorship of certain information and silencing of certain voices. Zuckerberg acknowledged in a letter to a congressional committee that his platform was under pressure from the Biden administration to censor certain content related to the pandemic, including humor and satire. (source: AP News)
In addition, Zuckerberg expressed regret for reductions in promotion and content reach regarding allegations about Joe Biden's son, Hunter, ahead of the 2020 election. At the time, mainstream American media, including major social networks like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, restricted the spread of this information.
Zuckerberg In his speech, he also announced the move of moderation teams from California to Texas, which is expected to help reduce perceived political bias. The move was interpreted as an attempt to gain trust among conservative users and politicians.
Despite these announced changes, the question remains whether this is a genuine effort to promote free speech or merely a strategic adjustment to the political winds. Some critics believe that these moves are primarily a response to political pressures and threats of regulation, especially from the Republican Party.
As for Mark Zuckerberg's potential criminal liability, the situation is complicated. While he acknowledged that Facebook was under government pressure to censor certain content, he also stressed that the final decisions to remove content were internal. Legal liability would depend on evidence of intentional and unlawful censorship and possible violations of free speech laws. There are currently no known legal proceedings against Zuckerberg in relation to these issues.
Full translation of Mark Zuckerberg's speech into Slovenian:
“Hi everyone, today I want to talk about something important because it's time to go back to the roots of freedom of expression on Facebook and Instagram.”
I started building social media with the intention of giving people a voice. Five years ago, I gave a speech at Georgetown University about the importance of protecting free speech, and I still believe in that. But a lot has happened in recent years.
There have been discussions about the potential harm that online content can cause. There has been strong pressure from governments and the media to censor content. Much of this has a clear political background, although there is also genuinely harmful content such as drugs, terrorism and child exploitation. We take these things very seriously and want to act responsibly.
That's why we've developed complex systems for moderating content. But complex systems are prone to errors. Even if we censor just 1 % posts incorrectly, that's millions of people. We've now reached a point where these errors are simply too many - and there's too much censorship.
The recent elections brought a cultural shift back to prioritizing freedom of expression. So we will return to our roots and focus on reducing errors, simplifying policies, and restoring freedom of expression on our platforms.
Plan of changes:
1. Abandoning fact-checkers
First, we will get rid of fact checkers and replace them with a community annotation system, similar to what the X network (formerly Twitter) does in the US. After the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the media constantly reported that disinformation was a threat to democracy. We sincerely wanted to address these concerns without becoming arbiters of truth. But fact checkers have become too politically biased and have created more distrust than trust – especially in the US. That is why we will gradually introduce a community annotation system over the coming months.
2. Simplification of content policies
We will simplify content policies and remove many restrictions on sensitive topics like immigration and gender that have become out of step with mainstream discourse. What started as an effort to be more inclusive has too often been used to silence opinions and people with different perspectives. I want to ensure that people can share their views and experiences on our platforms.
3. Change moderation methods
We will change the way we enforce content policies to reduce the errors that contribute to most censorship cases. Instead of automatically scanning all posts, we will focus our filters only on serious and illegal violations. For less serious violations, we will rely on user reports before taking action.
This means we will catch less objectionable content, while preventing the wrongful removal of posts and accounts of innocent users. We will also require a higher level of trust before removing a post.
4. Return of political content
Some time ago, the community wanted less political content because it was stressful. That's why we stopped recommending political posts. But we seem to be in a new era, as we're getting feedback that people want to see this kind of content again. That's why we'll gradually start reintroducing political posts to Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, while still maintaining a friendly and positive environment.
5. Relocation of moderation teams
We are moving our content moderation and safety teams from California to Texas. In the US, we will conduct content review from an environment where there are fewer concerns about team bias.
6. Cooperation with the US government
Finally, we will work with the U.S. government to oppose attempts by foreign countries to censor American companies. The U.S. Constitution has the strongest protections for free speech in the world. In Europe, however, the number of laws that institutionalize censorship is constantly increasing, making it difficult to innovate. In some Latin American countries, secret courts have the power to silently remove content. In China, our apps are completely blocked.
The only way to defend against this global trend is with the support of the American government. That's why the last four years have been so difficult, with the US also pushing for censorship. That's emboldened other governments to go even further. Now we have an opportunity to restore freedom of expression, and I'm excited that we can do it.
This will be a long process, and the systems will never be perfect. We will still fight illegal content, but the point remains: After years of focusing on removing content, it’s time to reduce errors, simplify systems, and get back to our roots – giving people a voice.
Stay well – more news coming soon.
👊 VICTORY for freedom of speech: 🤣
An hour ago, Mark Zuckerberg's speech was released about freedom of speech and censorship by Facebook. And how this will change immediately, and how governments around the world have exploited it!
Source: Mark Zuckerberg / META pic.twitter.com/EG5glCOLmi— Jan Macarol (@JMacarolV) January 7, 2025
This speech not only heralds change, but also raises the question of accountability for past actions. If Facebook truly did follow political pressure and influence election results by restricting certain information, the question arises: Can Mark Zuckerberg be held liable for the consequences of censorship? From a legal perspective, this will depend on the evidence that reveals whether it was intentional political support or simply a glitch in the system.
Conclusion:
Zuckerberg's announcements about changes to Facebook and Instagram's content moderation policies represent a significant shift towards greater freedom of expression on these platforms. However, they remain questions about past censorship practices and possible political bias. Whether this is a sincere effort for freedom of speech or simply an adaptation to the current political situation, time will tell. Users and observers will undoubtedly be watching closely to see how these changes will play out in practice and whether they will truly contribute to a more open and inclusive digital space.
Source: Meta / Facebook - Mark Zuckerberg
