Meta changes course: From suspending Trump’s profile on Facebook in 2021 to approaching the new president

In January 2021, Facebook – the social network owned by Meta– suspended then-President Donald Trump after the assault on the United States Capitol by his followers, who claimed that the election that gave victory to Joe Biden had been rigged. At the time, the company’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, justified the decision in a post, noting that allowing Trump to continue using the platform represented too high a risk in the wake of the riots.

Four years after that event, which left five dead and more than 700 people arrested, Meta seems to be redefining its strategy. The change could respond to the new political landscape with the imminent return of a Republican administration to the White House.

New members

The first indication of this reorientation is reflected in the recent appointment of three new members to Meta’s board of directors, including Dana White, president and CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and a figure very close to the incoming president, Donald Trump.

The other two new members are auto industry magnate John Elkann and technology investor Charlie Songhurst.

Regarding White, Zuckerberg highlighted his success in building global brands, describing him as a reference in the sports and business field.

The appointment is framed in a context in which Zuckerberg appears to seek to strengthen his relations with the future administration. An example of this is the recent donation of one million dollars to the president-elect’s inaugural fund.

“Dana has built the UFC into one of the most valuable and fastest-growing sports companies in the world. “I admire him for his ability to build such an influential brand,” Zuckerberg said.

It should be noted that Zuckerberg also practices mixed martial arts, and in 2023 there was speculation about a cage fight with Elon Musk, although this never took place.

Strategy change

In parallel, Meta has announced that it will eliminate its fact-checking program in the United Stateswhich represents a major shift in its content moderation policies.

The system will be replaced by Community Notes, a model based on user-generated verifications, similar to implemented by X (formerly Twitter), the social network owned by Elon Musk, another Trump ally.

“We’ve seen this approach work on X, where the community decides when posts are potentially misleading and need additional context.”explained Joel Kaplan, director of Global Affairs at Meta, in a blog post.

Meta acknowledged that its efforts to develop complex moderation systems have been “too far” and that have been committed “excesses” when censoring content.

Donald Trump said this Tuesday the 7th that the abrupt change in Meta’s content moderation policy was “probably” motivated by his threats against CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

According to the AFP news agency, in statements to journalists at his Mar-a-Lago residence (Florida), the elected American president expressed his satisfaction with Meta’s decision and, when asked if he believed it was a response to his threats against Zuckerberg, responded: “Probably, yes.”

A nod to the new administration

Meta’s recent movements suggest an openness towards the next Republican administration and a search for greater alignment with current trends in social networks, reflecting a commitment to deregulation and freedom of expression promoted by figures like Musk and Trump.

However, the context is broader than Trump’s return, Erick Iriarte, an expert in digital law, tells El Comercio. Platforms face regulations in Europe and Latin America that seek to hold them responsible for content, while in the United States, especially in Texas, the trend is reduce the responsibility of companies and transfer it to users. Zuckerberg has been clear in his speech: Meta will focus on combating serious problems such as pedophilia, cybercrime and terrorism, leaving users to regulate everyday content. This approach not only aligns Meta with the new administration, but also responds to an economic objective: reducing moderation costs, which represent millions of dollars annually.

One of the challenges this poses is the lack of digital literacy in the population. “If users are not trained to discern between misinformation and real content, misinformation can proliferate quickly,” warns Iriarte, an expert in digital law. Although platforms like Wikipedia have shown that users can successfully self-manage content, it remains to be seen if this model will be effective on social networks with millions of daily posts.

Meta seems to be taking a more pragmatic stance: “If the government doesn’t regulate disinformation, neither will we. “We will only focus on major crimes.”reflects the underlying discourse. This strategy could reinforce polarization and erode user trust, but at the same time, it ensures that the platform remains operational with lower costs.

Meta’s turnaround marks a departure from the European regulatory model that Zuckerberg once praised after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Now, Meta and other platforms could follow a path closer to Musk’s, leaving moderation in the hands of users and moving away from direct responsibilities for content.