Open Editor's Digest for free
Rula Khalaf, editor of the Financial Times, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
With their strong network effects, social networks were difficult to displace once they were established. Even if newer services emerge – such as TikTok – the sheer weight of user numbers usually guarantees older networks a place.
With political volatility spreading through the world of social networks, this certainty may no longer be reliable. The risk of political retaliation on the one hand, and public dissidence on the other, has created greater instability than at any time in years. Centralization forces remain strong, but shifts in audience habits and increasing fragmentation between networks are starting to look like a distinct possibility.
dead resolution The ending of fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram this week is the latest sign of this political turmoil. After replacing his company's global policy chief with a Republican and appointing a Trump ally to its board, CEO Mark Zuckerberg followed up on Monday by loosening its content policies, bowing to Republican complaints that his networks had veered into left-wing bias and censorship.
Zuckerberg has long been the great survivor of social networking. He is a fast follower in business and has been able to imitate or buy his way into new fads his industry has come up with. He is also a practical person who is willing to shift with the political winds. If you turn Facebook and Instagram into something more like Elon Musk X It is the price of peace now that Donald Trump is back in the White House, so be it.
Meta's desire to overhaul its networks to fit the times comes as strong political winds threaten to upend other parts of the social media landscape. TikTok is hoping a final hearing before the US Supreme Court on Friday will save it from a potential ban starting on January 19. Meanwhile, political polarization has also raised hopes for the newer networks, with some liberals spooked by Musk's management of X. Bluesky has deserted and Trump's Truth Social has attracted a stock market value of more than $7 billion.
It is unclear whether existing networks will be able to survive this period of turmoil, or whether there will be a more fundamental reorganization of social media.
Meta's attempt at a course correction has highlighted an uncomfortable truth. It may simply be impossible to operate a completely open and uncensored network, while at the same time providing an environment where anyone can feel safe and at home.
Efforts to resolve this fundamental tension have faltered. Outsourcing fact-checking to independent experts, for example, was one way Meta tried to combat the spread of misinformation while distancing itself from accusations that it was taking political sides. This failed to appease Republicans.
Meta's bet now seems to be that anarchic freedom for all will be the best way to keep the greatest number of people happy, much like the one that prevailed in X under Musk. But as in the case of Advertisers, for whom brand safety has been an ongoing concern on Meta Networks, are also likely to reevaluate.
One dimension of this potential rift is geographic. Although its impact is limited to the United States for now, Zuckerberg hinted that recent changes to his company's content policies could resonate globally, criticizing countries that impose greater “censorship” on US companies. However, such evocations of American ideals of free expression may conflict with cultural preferences elsewhere and may conflict with local laws.
A greater degree of personalization may help resolve some of the tensions, enabling networks to maintain their claims of complete openness while giving each user a more personalized experience. That's what Meta promised this week. But each person's experience is still determined entirely by their own meta-algorithms. A deeper form of personalization would give users a more direct say in the content they see, for example by allowing them to filter their content by independent algorithms of their choice. But Mita resisted giving up on that.
If Zuckerberg had judged the political winds and his users' tolerance for change correctly, he might have given meta a new lease on life. But the risks of making mistakes have never seemed higher.
