‘Libertarian Zuckerberg’ Needs to Walk the Walk

Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg wants a rebrand. Having just publicly identified as a libertarian and with his letter to the House Judiciary Committee in which he highlighted the role the government played in online censorship, it seems he wants to become a standard bearer of free speech. In the letter, for instance, he specifically cites and condemns how the Biden Administration pressured Meta to take down certain posts regarding COVID-19 and how the FBI issued warnings about the now-vindicated Hunter Biden laptop story being Russian propaganda.

While Zuckerberg is critical of the government’s actions and promises that Meta will be a stronger bulwark against this kind of pressure in the future, his letter falls short of being helpful to those seeking government accountability. With selectively chosen language and without remedial action, his letter doesn’t quite give us concrete evidence of his new pro-free speech bona fides.

It’s not all bad, to be clear. I would rather public figures expose the government for working behind the scenes to influence censorship than pretend it didn’t happen. Zuckerberg’s letter, however, is carefully worded to keep him from providing legal grounds for a challenge to the government’s actions. When talking about how the Biden Administration behaved, he repeatedly uses the term “pressure” rather than coerce. The Supreme Court has explicitly permitted the government’s ability to express its own preferences for what a private company should do, so long as there’s no threat of recourse; pressure, but not coercion. Even had this letter come out before the  Murthy v. Missouri decision,  it would have had no legal impact. By refraining from saying there were threats of consequences and sidestepping the word coercion, Zuckerburg sidesteps the frontlines of speech advocates trying to combat government censorship. 

Looking forward, his promise to stand up to this type of government compulsion in the future sounds nice, but is just a promise enough? When it really counted, Meta succumbed to the Biden Administration’s pressure to take down posts about the COVID-19 lab leak theory and many legitimate questions around the vaccines. They stifled the Hunter Biden laptop story. In high pressure situations, Meta’s track record is one of silencing first and apologizing later. One could argue this letter is the necessary shift to a more pro-free speech position, but until we see making practical changes to safeguard speech, we have no evidence of any new conviction.

If Mark Zuckerberg is truly as remorseful as his letter insists, he ought to ameliorate the harms as best he can by reversing any residual damage of his own failure to act. Some damage cannot be undone, such as suppressing a potentially election-altering news story, but the fallout still negatively impacts many accounts. Suppressed reach and the inability to monetize posts are still byproducts on accounts that had posted information that was later verified to be true!

To show good faith, Meta should start by reviewing every account suspended for misinformation, publicly releasing a full list, and restoring the wrongfully silenced. Ending aggressive shadow-banning policies and committing to a much more robust and transparent appeal process for blocked content should be next. Lastly, Facebook should democratize its content warnings to be more like X’s Community Notes feature, to take Facebook managers out of the role of being the sole arbiters of truth.

Is this a lot of work? Absolutely. But drastic actions call for drastic consequences. In an age when taking away someone’s digital platform can be the difference between earning a livelihood and not, wrongful suspension or suppression of an account should not be treated lightly. No actions now or in the future can make up the lost time for accounts suspended, but these would be the first steps in restoring trust in Meta platforms.

Short of these or similar reforms, Zuckerberg’s letter and subsequent libertarian identification are left in a place more frustrating than constructive. Free speech advocates can cheer for the cultural victory to some degree, but without any legal bearing or concrete action steps, it rings hollow. Zuckerberg’s equivocation on government censorship suggests that he is less interested in free speech, and more invested in avoiding legislative scrutiny.