Alright, good day, we have a lot to talk about - Meta changing sides towards more radical Republican narrative and TikTok’s final days seem to be the main topics of these days so, 

Happy new year 1938! 🥳

Welcome to the year where we shit on morality of our acts and societal responsibility and do just popular stuff so the cool kids like us! 

Speaking of nerds trying to appeal to cool kids…

Mark Zuckerberg has been BUSY. He:
- announced the end of 3rd party fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram in U.S., mostly regarding political, health, racial and LGBTQ+ topics in favor of Community Notes (like on X)
- announced the move of content moderation teams away from “biased” West to “less biased” Texas
- appointed Trump’s friend, the UFC chief Dana White a member of Meta’s board
- announced a new content moderation guidebook that shows nothing nice and it allegedly got leaked
- kept dodging allegations of lobbying for TikTok’s ban
- cancelled Meta’s DEI Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program
- made an appearance on Joe Rogan’s Experience podcast and oh boy…

All of this shows a MASSIVE change in Meta’s political involvement and the top comment on the podcast summed it up just brilliantly:

Many commenters are calling it “backpedalling” and an attempt to “be on the right side of history” or at least the side that’s at the steering wheel at the moment.

And if we wanted to put on a conspiracy tinfoil hat on for a moment, this all makes sense, as there are rumors that it’s actually Meta who lobbied for TikTok’s ban, as they are the most direct competitor with Instagram Reels targeting the same demographic with both their content platform AND ad platform.

Sure, might be a gossip, but when you throw in a $1 million donation to Trump’s inaugural fund on top of everything above, it raises a bigger question: Is Zuckerberg leaning into Trump’s administration and MAGA territory to score some political points?

And how did the Friday January 10, 2025 US Supreme Court hearing for TikTok’s future go?

Let’s talk!

Meta’s Big Pivot: Community Moderation or Political Play?

So here’s the deal. Zuckerberg’s decision to end fact-checking is a major shake-up. 

Instead of relying on third-party fact-checkers to check and flag mostly political and racial/LGBTQ+ related content, Meta’s shifting to "Community Notes"—a user-driven system where people can add context to posts. It’s supposed to be less biased and less of a censorship minefield. Also, supposedly more effective, as you can contract only so many fact checkers, but the community outnumbers these efforts any day of the week. The quality is VERY questionable, but the quantity might be there.

According to Zuckerberg, the current fact-checking model wasn’t cutting it:
"We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship."

Sounds familiar? This approach mirrors Elon Musk’s playbook on X (formerly Twitter), where Community Notes have been touted as the future of "transparent" content moderation. Whether it’ll actually work on a platform as massive as Facebook remains to be seen. (Source: NY Post)

Because, surprise surprise, reports find out Community Notes failed to address misinformation on X.

But more surprisingly, though this change only covers the United States, the fact-checker agencies in question actually fired back, claiming they never had any means of censoring content, as they only fact-checked flagged content and provided results to Meta’s own Content Moderation teams to actually act up on these recommendations.

Those Content Moderation teams that are being moved from “biased” Silicon Valley to “less biased” Texas. Zuckerberg says it’s to reduce "cultural bias" and build trust, claiming:

"As we work to promote free expression, I think that will help build trust to do this work in places where there’s less concern about the bias of our team." (Source: NY Post)

Sure. Definitely not because the wages are lower in Texas, Texas having no state income tax, and Texas being as Republican as they get …Sure.

Trump, Texas, and TikTok

But speaking of being Republican, Meta’s $1 million donation to Trump’s inaugural fund is turning heads. This isn’t just pocket change—it’s a statement. Especially considering that Meta didn’t make similar contributions during past administrations. Ever. (Source: BBC)

Then there’s the above mentioned relocation of Meta’s content moderation teams from California to Texas. 

Oh, and Dana White—yes, that Dana White, the UFC CEO and longtime Trump ally—just joined Meta’s board of directors. Coincidence? Unlikely. (Source: AP News)

And what’s this about TikTok? Rumors are flying that Zuckerberg might be lobbying the Biden administration to keep the TikTok ban alive. Because while Trump was against TikTok in the past, now since Biden’s administration made the “divest or ban” act into an actual law, Trump opposes that notion and suddenly takes TikTok’s side.

And you know who tries to get on Trump’s good side?

The owner of TikTok’s direct competitor - Zuck and his Instagram! 

So if there’s any truth to this, it’s no surprise. That said, actual evidence is still murky at best.

Free Speech or Strategic Pandering?

So, what’s the game here? Zuckerberg’s moves—killing fact-checking, cozying up to Trump’s voters by donating to Trump, canceling DEI, appointing Dana White a board member, and shifting moderation to Texas—seem to scream "strategic repositioning."

Maybe it’s just about building goodwill with Trump and MAGA supporters. Maybe it’s a calculated way to keep regulators off Meta’s back under a Republican-led administration.

Either way, this “free expression” pivot is raising more questions than answers. Is it a step towards a less biased platform or a clever way to align with the incoming political power?

If the Joe Rogan podcast is of any proof, it’s that Zuck changed his public image to appeal to Trump and MAGA as much as possible. The whole podcast was about censorship during Biden’s administration regarding Covid-19 vaccines, free speech and how it’s the Facebook’s original mission (I thought it was build to body shame and rate girls who rejected Zuck on Harvard’s grounds but okay…) and how he likes to hunt, and how his jiu-jitsu made him re-evaluate his life and how he respects Dana White and oh my got I’m going to barf… 🤮

TikTok’s final days are ticking

Top it all off with the recent 2.5 hours of Supreme Court hearing regarding TikTok’s future and you get the idea why Zuck does what he does.

Whether the allegations about lobbying are true or not, the Justices questioning TikTok’s lawyers made multiple remarks regarding the data threats of TikTok towards US citizens and how it’s the same basically with any other social network with the only difference them being hosted by US companies. Because funnily enough, IT IS the only difference!

This hinted at two things: the only thing US Senate and Congress tried to achieve was to force divesture of TikTok out of chinese controlled ByteDance, so “someone” can buy TikTok into an US entity and so it continues to operate in US and drive billions of dollars of ad revenue. That’s it. I’m genuinely convinced this was their plan all along and they thought it’s a no-brainer for ByteDance and they will sell it.

And second: the eventual ban will create a precedent.
And not just against China-operated apps, but ALL social media. And the US operated ones might be next. And Zuck knows that. So it should be in everyone’s best interest to aim for just the TikTok divesture, not actual ban.

WELP!

As TikTok’s announcement earlier this week and their lawyer at the hearing confirmed, TikTok is ready to shut down their operation in the US on January 19, 2025 as the law mandates. ByteDance claims TikTok would not be TikTok without the connection to Chinese and the global “hive mind” of an algorithm, and therefore absolutely refuse to sell off the US portion to any entity in a fear of jeopardy.

So they appeal to US Supreme Court with hearing on January 10, 2025, just 9 days before the deadline, in hopes of getting the ruling stopped or postponed. Because you know what happens just one day after the deadline? 

On January 20, 2025, just one day after the TikTok “divest or ban” limit, Donald Trump starts his second run as the US President. And by law, he has the option to withdraw a previously established order.

Isn’t it fun? How all this just makes sense? How US Senate went ahead and warned Google and Apple to delete TikTok from appstores on January 19 or else face massive fines?

Isn’t it fun how Zuck tries to appeal to Trump’s good side to try to stop him, if he decides to unban TikTok?

Your turn: Does this signal a new era for safe, free speech on social platforms, or is it just Meta playing politics? Drop your thoughts in the comments—I’m curious where you land.

Have a great week.

Cheers,

Mark (Valasik, not Zuck!)

Other Sources:

• Zuckerberg announces end to Facebook's third-party fact-checking

• Meta eliminates fact-checking in latest bow to Trump

• Nick Clegg replaced at Meta by figure more favorable to Trump

• BBC on Meta's Trump donation

• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-fact-checking-partners-blindsided/ 

• https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees-trump