Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement of the end of moderation at META has unsurprisingly generated a lot of ink and sometimes shocked reactions. But for me, the most surprising thing is not so much the announcement as the fact that it came as a surprise, since the least we can say is that the man has often accustomed us to making the great leap between ethics and business.
And remember: “when it’s free, you’re the product”.
Let’s take a step back.
We live in a world populated by billions of hyper-connected people, most of them thanks to Mr. Zuckerberg’s tools. And he has spent a lot of time tightrope walking, trying to reconcile his economic ambitions, the expectations of users who are also the products he sells to his customers, and finally the customers themselves, caught between a rock and a hard place (ethics and business), with the aim of ensuring that neither customers nor users jump ship (What should we think of a business that disdains its products ?).
So, with the help of more or less biased algorithms and an army of underpaid moderators, he set out to clean up the gigantic digital dump he had built himself.
“Too much censorship, too many mistakes”
Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of Meta’s fact-checking program, admitting that it had become a tool of excessive censorship and “too many mistakes”.
In his defense, art is complicated, simply because what’s culturally acceptable here isn’t there (After an Eight-Year Legal Battle, Facebook Ends Its Dispute With a French School Teacher Who Posted Courbet’s ‘Origin of the World), but at some point you get the mistakes you deserve – for example, banning publications on climate change while allowing frivolous theories on vaccines to flourish.
But don’t worry! Zuckerberg’s secret trick is to explain that moderation has not been abandoned, but is evolving. From now on, users will be the ones moderating via a system of “community notes”, a bit like a mayor closing down police stations and giving everyone a policeman’s hat. An effective way to get out of the way.
Texas, land of freedom
Ironically, this move is accompanied by a decision of great significance. The moderation teams (or what’s left of them) will be moved from California to Texas. Perhaps because Californians have developed a chronic intolerance of contrary opinions?
Texas, with its taste for freedom and firearms, seems more suited to this new era. After all, words will always kill less than guns. Although…
In praise of selective neutrality
Joking aside, I’m surprised we’re surprised.
Indeed, a few years ago our dear “Zuck” wanted to bethe champion of a clean and responsible Internet. He spent billions of dollars fighting disinformation, banning hate speech, and banning a few troublesome individuals (cuckoo, Donald Trump). At the time, he said that Meta had to take responsibility for the excesses of its platforms.
But what now? The tide has turned, and Zuckerberg with it. With Donald Trump back in the White House, it’s time for an update on priorities. Freedom of expression is back in the spotlight, confirming that“you don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Orderly chaos begins at home
This distributed moderation (a more political way of saying “non-moderation”) is sold to us as a response to criticism of censorship, but it’s also a very practical way of cutting costs. Fewer fact-checkers, fewer moderation teams, less accountability. And since extreme content boosts if not engagement, at least reaction, who’s going to complain? Not shareholders, nor even most advertisers. Still…
Remember, on META we’re the product, and all this generates clicks, likes and advertising revenue. And too bad if it goes wrong, it’s the community that’s done a bad job.
But are Facebook users a community? It’s a question worth asking.
What about us?
Everyone’s offended, but we can safely bet that everyone will continue to play the game. Clicking away, indignant or fascinated by the chaos we’re helping to maintain. After all, if META abandons moderation and becomes anything goes, it’s us who provide the fuel that keeps it going.
So, what should we do? Flee to other platforms? Twitter has become a real dumping ground and TikTok is owned by China, which brings you back to your definition of freedom and respect for data. Then there’s BlueSky, which I’ll tell you about later, but where you can join me.
Bottom line
Zuckerberg has no political or ethical conscience, he’s just a pragmatist. He’s not looking to be loved, only to be indispensable, to attract as many people as possible to be exposed to as many brands as possible. He’s not there to solve society’s problems, but to exploit them. It doesn’t matter whether you call him cynical or libertarian: as long as we can’t do without META, the world will keep spinning, at least for him.
In the end, Zuckerberg or even Musk aren’t the problem, just products of the current world or consequences of the problem. The problem is that we’re so dependent on these platforms. Whose fault is that? Maybe us.
Image: Marc Zuckerberg by Frederic Legrand – COMEO via Shutterstock.