A juxtaposition of X and Meta logos (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)

Mark Zuckerberg has also been driven by lessons learned from Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter/X (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)

A Big Tech race to the bottom is bad news for everyone

Tariffs might not be the only trade obstacle with Trump’s America. “Censorship” could be the next test.

David Wells

16 January 20254 min read

There are multiple explanations for last week’s changes in how Meta will moderate content across its platforms, including financial ones, the evolving views of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Meta’s policies simply swaying in line with the political pendulum.

I would argue that his announcement has also been driven by lessons learned from Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter more than two years ago. Back in late 2022, I wrote for The Interpreter about how Musk had exposed the fragility of collaborative approaches to countering terrorism online, warning that Twitter/X would provide Big Tech with a high-profile, lowest common denominator that would drag down content moderation standards.

The past two years of a Musk-led X have been much worse than most imagined. And yet, despite his embrace of the far-right and degradation of X’s content moderation efforts, the most significant consequences of Musk’s actions so far have been a reduction in X’s user base and revenue, rather than meaningful pushback from governments and regulators.

As a result, although other big tech platforms have largely continued to prioritise the moderation of terrorist content, there has been a decline in broader content moderation standards, with Facebook already rife with pornography, gore, AI-generated slop and bots. Indeed, in July last year, one researcher characterised Facebook’s efforts as “how little content moderation can we get away with”.

It is difficult to accurately predict how these relatively technical changes will impact speech in each of the dozens of global jurisdictions in which Meta’s platforms are active.

Last week’s announcement suggests that the answer will be a reduction on even this relatively low standard, affecting more than 3 billion users of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp worldwide. While the switch from fact-checking to community notes is concerning (with significant question marks regarding the latter’s effectiveness), changes in Meta’s Terms of Service clearly signpost which communities will feel the impact of these changes most directly.

Zuckerberg referenced removing restrictions on speech around immigration and gender identity that were “out of touch with mainstream discourse”. As a result, Meta will now allow allegations of mental illness when based on gender or sexual orientation, statements arguing that a certain group of people doesn’t or shouldn’t exist, and describing people as faeces or filth, based on their immigration status or gender identity.

Despite Zuckerberg’s assurance that removing terrorist content will remain a priority for Meta, this dramatic shift away from moderating hate speech often characterised as “lawful but awful” will clearly make minority groups a target for hate on the world’s largest internet platforms. And embolden violent extremist and terrorist groups – particularly the far-right – in their ongoing targeting of immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and women. So even if terrorist content continues to be removed, Meta’s platforms are likely to become fertile ground for terrorists and violent extremists.

And if it is difficult to accurately predict how these relatively technical changes will impact speech in each of the dozens of global jurisdictions in which Meta’s platforms are active, the example of Twitter/X is perhaps instructive. Because while the prognosis looked bad in November 2022, it is significantly worse in January 2025.

So rather than being a final destination or defined set of rules, these changes should be seen as a starting point, with standards (and the enforcement of these standards) only likely to head downwards. A Big Tech race to the bottom on content moderation is bad news for everyone, regardless of whether they are users of these platforms

Despite this worrying diagnosis, governments are not necessarily powerless. Indeed, initial clarifications regarding the shift away from fact-checking suggests that where regulation exists – particularly in the European Union – Meta will not fully abandon its existing commitments, yet.

Simultaneously however, Zuckerberg’s claim that Meta would “work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” (citing Europe and Latin America specifically) should alarm politicians and policymakers everywhere.

Australia is no stranger to battles with Big Tech and Meta, including via recent legislation to ban under-16s from social media and a scheme to force digital platforms to pay publishers for Australian news. Although both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland have responded robustly to Meta’s shift in policy, Zuckerberg’s statement suggests that he hopes to characterise attempts to regulate Meta’s content regulation (or enforce existing legislation) as pro-censorship and anti-American.

It seems feasible that the Trump administration might target legislation (including the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act) in trade negotiations or broader foreign policy engagement. Even if this is not the case, Zuckerberg could follow Musk’s example and largely ignore its regulatory responsibilities outside of the US, with any fines levied against Meta insignificant in comparison to the opportunities offered by alignment with Trump.

This would represent a significant challenge to the digital sovereignty of Australia and many other countries or regions. Will they allow US oligarchs, aided by the US administration, to enable the widespread dissemination of hate speech and violent extremism on tech platforms within their jurisdiction? Or will they risk standing up to a US administration that even prior to taking power, is willing to bully even their closest allies?

About the author

David Wells

David Wells is an independent global security expert, who was most recently Head of Research and Analysis at the UN Counter-Terrorism Directorate in New York, managing the team who monitor global security and geopolitical trends for the Security Council.

Topics

United States Cyber & technology