The founder of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, in a video published on his online platforms, announces a change of direction in content moderation: enough with independent fact-checking, less automatic censorship by the algorithm and greater freedom of expression. These are the three key points of a video that, for better or worse, will go down in the history of social networks. On the one hand there are those who welcomed the decision with enthusiasm, interpreting it as the death of the so-called “political correctness” (or “woke culture”). On the other hand, however, there are those who see it as a serious step backwards in the fight against false news and the spread of hatred online.

Not just Trump and Musk

The political influence is evident: Zuckerberg aligns himself with Musk and Trump, the currently most powerful couple of men in the world, probably with the aim of obtaining various types of advantages and benefits. But if you believe that it is exclusively a decision induced from above, you are wrong. There are in fact at least two other big concrete reasons why Zuckerberg decided to expose himself, and it is unlikely that other large social networks (not politically aligned) will be able to take significantly different positions in the future, regardless of whether power is on the right or the left.

The hoax of “independent fact-checkers”

The first reason: it is very complex to discern a personal opinion from an objective fact, and anyone who claims the opposite is either in bad faith or is simply ideological. Fake news and real news certainly exist, but there is also an infinite gray space between these two poles which is also the most frequent one, and no fact-checker, not even AI (to date), can accurately scan it. Error, both human and digital, is too frequent, and those who publish content online for work know this very well. Even the concept of “independent fact-checkers”, however fascinating, is absolutely misleading, since all human beings have their own political interpretation of reality, and if they do not realize it they are even more dangerous and prone to error.

Savings

The second reason behind Zuckerberg’s decision is purely economic: he essentially seized the opportunity of the change of political power to save money. The costs for content moderation are in fact enormous and Meta simply wants to cut them. Furthermore, although the relaxation of moderation has been interpreted as a purely right-wing move, in reality it could also favor “left-wing ideas”. For example, many complain about the continuous censorship relating to posts on Gaza, accusing Meta of being pro-Israel. Well, even in this case it is expected that the contents can flow with greater freedom (if this were not the case it would be serious and then it would certainly be an exclusively political move). Clearly it’s about finding a balance and there is no right choice in an absolute sense. Rules are needed, and in fact Zuckerberg didn’t decide to eliminate them, he just decided to change them. Those who cry scandal often have more personal ideological interests than the objective will to understand or solve the problem.