Mark Zuckerberg's unexpected “freedom of expression” overhaul of Meta content moderation has raised concerns among advertisers that it will lead to a surge in harmful content and misinformation across the social media platform.
Several advertising chiefs told the Financial Times that Meta's move is to wind down its business Fact checking program Weakening hate speech policies could cost the platform, where marketing accounts for the majority of its $135 billion in annual sales, if brands fear their ads will run next to toxic content.
Fergus McCallum, head of advertising agency TBWA\MCR, said: “Some brands will already be carefully evaluating their plans, and this will undoubtedly become a commercial dilemma for both sides.”
The $1.5 trillion company's radical dilution of its online content marks an escalation in Zuckerberg's latest push to curry favor with President-elect Donald Trump and his new right-hand man Elon Musk.
Over the course of just a few days, it saw Meta's head of global policy, Nick Clegg, replaced by prominent Republican ally Joel Kaplan, as well as the appointment of martial arts giant and Trump friend Dana White to its board. On Friday, the company announced internally that it would also end its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, while Zuckerberg appeared on Joe Rogan's show. Podcast To say that companies have become “culturally neutral” and need to have more “masculine energy” and “celebrate aggression a little more.”
But the move to ditch professional fact-checkers in favor of Musk's
Meta has long dominated marketing spend alongside Google, building a reputation as a relative safe haven, with high ROI and close relationships with major brands. In return, X was injured Marketer migration Due to moderation concerns after Musk purchased the platform two years ago, destroying its revenues.
“Meta has done a fantastic job of regulating the worst abuses of toxic content, and if its new policies undo that, advertisers will quickly find out and punish them,” said Richard Exon, founder of advertising agency Joint.
In
Critics argue that crowdsourced fact-checking efforts are much slower at classifying lies and conspiracies than professional, trained individuals, and can be manipulated by users.
The meta community's shift to fiat “creates headwinds for risk-averse marketers,” said Lou Pascalis, CEO of marketing consulting firm AJL Advisory and a former media executive at Bank of America, adding that some will “reduce their reliance” on meta as a result. .
Other advertising executives described feeling “nervous” and were looking for more information from the platform on exactly how to implement the changes.
“Brands are entering a new world where established operating rules can no longer be relied upon,” said Patrick Reid, group chief executive at creative ad agency Imagination.
Concerns have also been raised about Meta's plans to change its systems to “significantly reduce” the amount of content its automated filters remove from its platforms.
This includes lifting restrictions on topics such as immigration and sex, to focus its systems on “unlawful and high-risk abuses”, such as terrorism, child exploitation and fraud, as well as content related to suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Zuckerberg himself admitted that his systems will now detect “less bad things.”
Other industry executives were more skeptical that the shift would create much of a ramifications for Meta's advertising business. “I don't think advertisers will care as long as the platform does well, but they will care if the content becomes more polarized,” said one head of a major advertising agency.
“The harsh reality is that advertisers will only care if it hurts their numbers,” said Alex Cheeseman, head of Outbrain UK, “If performance remains constant, no one will have to worry about ‘where’ or ‘how’ their ads appear.”
At CES this week, Alex Schultz, Meta's chief marketing officer, said the company's brand safety tools remain in place, and that the company was “not in a rush” in rolling them out to give advertisers “time to adapt and understand.” Nicola Mendelsohn, head of Meta's global business group, wrote in a LinkedIn post that the company will continue to invest in safety tools for advertisers.
Meta's policy changed immediately and opinions within the company were divided. Some employees view the moderation updates as a rollback of important protections, one of the people said, but added that employees are “afraid to really speak up” since Meta has undergone several painful rounds of layoffs since the pandemic.
Another employee said that internal reaction to the switch to community feedback has been largely positive, especially since fact-checking is seen as a “ungrateful” task “since one side is bound to accuse you of taking sides.”
Those who know Zuckerberg say he has been a longtime advocate of free speech, but has shaped his positions according to political and public pressures over the years.
“This has become a trend,” said Katie Harbath, a former policy director who worked on Meta's election strategy for a decade. “After every major election since 2016, Mark has been making these big shifts — going where the societal and regulatory winds are blowing. This is another one of those realignments.”
Zuckerberg first introduced a third-party fact-checking service as part of a set of measures in late 2016 designed to address criticism of misinformation on Facebook. But Zuckerberg this week blamed governments and “legacy media” for pushing his company to “impose more and more censorship,” and accused fact-checkers of being “very politically biased.”
“Mark, Meta, welcome to the party,” X CEO Linda Yaccarino said at a conference on Tuesday.
In response to a question about the new changes made by Meta at a press conference, Trump said that he believed the technology group had “come a long way,” adding that Zuckerberg was “most likely” responding to the threats he had previously made against him.
During the campaign, Trump threatened to jail the social media boss for alleged election interference, and called his company an “enemy of the people” over alleged censorship.
Experts believe that Zuckerberg's shift is as much a business decision as it is an ideological decision.
The head of Meta is pouring billions of dollars into his ambitions to become the “leader” in AI, and has been publicly touting his open source approach to AI while regulators globally surround the space.
“The main reason Mark saw the influence of Elon and (venture capitalists Marc) Andreessen and (David) Sachs on Trump and wanted to make sure he was in the mix,” Harbath said.
The move also comes before the tech group faces a major antitrust trial in April. The FTC has accused the social media group of maintaining its monopoly power and using a “buy or bury” strategy to neutralize competitors, and is seeking to force the company to back away from its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
“In order for the company not to be broken up by antitrust actions, which he realizes can be heavily influenced by who is in power in Washington, Zuckerberg needs to be a chameleon,” said David Evan Harris, a research fellow at the University of California. , Berkeley and a former employee of Meta.
Additional reporting by Christina Kriddle in San Francisco and Clara Murray in London
