Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Thanks to their powerful network effects, social networks have become difficult to remove once established. Even if new services break through — think TikTok — the sheer weight of user numbers usually ensures older networks a place.
As political unrest courses through the world of social networking, that certainty may no longer be reliable. The risk of political retaliation on the one hand and the risk of audience defection on the other have created more instability than at any time over the years. The forces of centralization are still strong, but changing audience habits and greater fragmentation within networks are starting to look like a distinct possibility.
Meta’s the decision The end of fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram this week is the latest sign of this political upheaval. After replacing his company’s global policy chief with a Republican and appointing a Trump ally to its board, Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg followed through on Monday by loosening content policies, bowing to Republican charges that his networks have drifted toward left-wing bias and censorship.
Zuckerberg has long been the great survivor of social media. He is a fast-follower in the business who has been able to copy or buy his way into new fads that come along with his industry. He is also a pragmatist who is ready to change with the political winds. Facebook and Instagram turned into something even better X by Elon Musk The price of peace now that Donald Trump is returning to the White House, so be it.
Meta’s willingness to revamp its networks to fit the times comes as strong political winds threaten to upend other parts of the social media landscape. TikTok is hoping that a last-minute hearing before the US Supreme Court on Friday will protect it from a possible ban starting on January 19. Meanwhile, political polarization has also stoked hopes for new networks, as some libertarians defected to Bluesky upset over Musk’s management of X, and Trump’s Truth Social attracted a stock market valuation of more than $7 billion.
It is unclear whether established networks will be able to weather this period of instability, or whether there is a more fundamental restructuring of social media.
Meta’s effort-correction has highlighted an uncomfortable truth. It can be impossible to run a completely open, uncensored network, while at the same time presenting an environment where anyone can feel safe and at home.
Efforts to resolve this underlying tension have been established. Outsourcing fact-checking to independent experts, for example, Meta tried to combat the spread of misinformation while distancing itself from accusations of political bias. This failed to satisfy Republicans.
Mater Bet now looks like a messy free-all will be the best way to keep the most people happy, much like X under the mask. But like X, many Facebook and Instagram users may be driven away if it leads to a more oppositional environment — especially as Meta says it now plans to allow its users to increase the amount of political content. Advertisers, for whom brand safety has become a constant concern on Meta’s networks, may also reevaluate.
One dimension of this potential fracturing is geographic. Although only affecting the US for now, Zuckerberg has played down the possibility that the latest changes to his company’s content policy will be reflected globally, criticizing countries that force greater “censorship” on US companies. Such invocation of American ideals of free-speech, however, may run counter to cultural preferences elsewhere and conflict with local laws.
A greater degree of personalization could help resolve some of the tension, enabling networks to maintain their claims of complete openness while providing a more tailored experience to each user. Meta promised this week. But each person’s experience is still completely determined by Meta’s own algorithms. A deeper form of personalization would give users a more direct say in the content they view, for example by allowing them to filter their content by independent algorithms of their own choosing. Meta, though, has resisted giving it up.
If Zuckerberg correctly judges the political winds and his own users’ tolerance for change, he could give Meta a new lease of life. But the risk of getting it wrong has never been greater.
