Zuckerberg’s ‘free speech’ overhaul worries advertisers

Meta, co-founded and run by Mark Zuckerberg, is the parent company for many of the world’s top social media platforms. These include Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, as well as other technology products and services. Zuckerberg himself has always been an advocate for the driving power that free speech has online. As far back as 2019, he argued that preventing free expression can reinforce institutions and existing power structures, no matter the reasons for doing so. However, despite using an independent fact checker since 2016, Meta is now suggesting that this has become a tool for censorship rather than informing people safely.

The company’s current moderation overhaul is designed to empower the community by enabling them to decide which content is misleading and which should reach a wider audience. Despite what appears to be a well-intentioned change, critics are arguing this is not the case and that it is only going to encourage hate speech and offensive language on the platforms. Significant changes include no longer banning slurs used to attack people on the basis of their protected characteristics, and removing the ban on insulting people with terms relating to sex or gender when discussing political or religious topics such as transgender rights.

Each year, Meta makes over $135 billion in revenue, with the majority coming from brand advertising. The changes to Meta’s policies and its stance on free speech have raised concerns among some of these key brands. A growing fear is emerging that their advertisements could appear alongside content that may harm their reputation, contradict their brand values, or conflict with their established guidelines. This potential association with controversial or inappropriate content could not only tarnish their image but also erode consumer trust, prompting advertisers to reconsider their partnerships with Meta.

This is similar to the effect of Musk’s policies at X. Similarly, the platform uses the ‘Community Notes’ system to manage content and has since seen a significant depletion of advertisers alongside losing 60% of its revenue. The similarities between X and Meta are clearly apparent, but it’s important to consider the extent to which Musk himself played a role in the decline of X. His own personal views and ability to spark controversy have likely damaged the platform’s reputation just as much as his new policies have. Therefore, the impact of Meta’s overhaul will potentially be smaller.

“Advertisers will only care [about the policy change] if it hurts their numbers”

Alex Cheeseman, Head of Enterprise UK, Outbrain

Alex Cheeseman, the Head of Enterprise UK at web recommendation platform Outbrain, has noted that “advertisers will only care [about the policy change] if it hurts their numbers”. In the world of advertising, the primary focus of advertisers often revolves around measurable outcomes and returns on investment. As long as their campaigns continue to deliver satisfactory results, many are unlikely to prioritise concerns about advertisement placement or context.

If this is the case, then it’s unsurprising that Zuckerberg has pushed these changes through. They can be viewed as a strategic move in response to a changing political and technological landscape.

Musk’s substantial support for Donald Trump, including significant financial contributions and public endorsements, has strengthened his influence within the current administration. His involvement has extended to participating in budget negotiations and assuming a prominent role in the presidential transition, leading some to perceive him as wielding considerable power in shaping policy decisions.

In this context, Zuckerberg’s policy adjustments at Meta may be interpreted as an effort to adapt to the political climate and maintain a competitive edge in the tech industry. By adopting a content moderation model similar to that of Musk’s platform, he could be seeking to mitigate potential regulatory scrutiny and foster a more favourable relationship with the current administration despite the pains it may cause in the short run for advertising revenue.