Meta: Prioritise human rights, not politics

As the global leader in freedom of expression, ARTICLE 19 expresses serious concerns regarding Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement about overhauling Meta's content moderation policies. While claiming to protect freedom of expression, the shift, and its timing, appear politically motivated, reflecting an attempt to cater to specific political interests rather than genuinely enhancing this fundamental right.

ARTICLE 19 observes that Mark Zuckerberg's claim that this change is a return to 'foundational principles' of free expression raises questions of credibility. No one is happy with the content moderation of social media as it now stands - Meta and other companies continue to fall short of their human rights responsibilities. However, the approach outlined by Mark Zuckerberg seems to closely parrot talking points taken from conservative media in the US who have long criticised Meta's content moderation practices as liberally biased with little regard to the actual human rights and freedom of expression challenges on its platforms.

Beyond the actual changes announced - which range from problematic ones, like eliminating the use of fact-checkers, to potentially positive ones, like allowing more political content and reducing reliance on automated filters - the timing of this announcement, just days before the inauguration of President-elect Trump, raises red flags. It suggests an effort to appease a political faction that has in the past accused Meta of suppressing conservative viewpoints and calls into question the integrity of Meta's commitment to freedom of expression.

Furthermore, we are concerned with Zuckerberg's remarks about 'working with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor'. As an organisation dedicated to creating a world where all people, everywhere, can realise the power of their voices without fear or discrimination, we fully support efforts to push back on attempts by governments to censor lawful speech. However, the timing and tone of this announcement, including the specific targeting of the efforts by the European Union to regulate Big Tech, give us concerns that this is a politically expedient way to undermine any attempts at accountability through tech regulation. By framing this 'collaboration' as a 'defence against global censorship, Zuckerberg appears to prioritise corporate interests over respect for human rights. This approach risks fostering an environment where hateful content can proliferate unchecked.

Moreover, we are puzzled by Mark Zuckerberg's assertion that Europe has enacted an 'ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship'. In particular, we believe it shows a misunderstanding of the essential role that regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) can play in protecting human rights online. DMA, in particular, creates a level playing field that encourages new entrants and smaller businesses to thrive. Rather than viewing this legislation as a barrier to innovation, Meta should recognise it as an opportunity to enhance user trust and engagement by prioritising safety and transparency.

All in all, while Mark Zuckerberg attempts to frame the policy changes as a defence of free speech, in reality, what they reveal is a troubling willingness to align with political agendas that may undermine the platform's accountability and user safety.

We call on Meta to prioritise human rights over political posturing and finally focus its efforts on ensuring that its content moderation practices are transparent and accountable.