Meta Faces Internal Backlash Over Policy Shifts Favoring Incoming Trump Administration
Meta employees are expressing deep concern and outrage over a series of recent policy changes implemented by the company, just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. These changes, which include the elimination of third-party fact-checking and the addition of controversial figures to the board, are perceived by many within Meta as a blatant attempt to appease the incoming administration at the expense of the platform’s integrity and commitment to combating misinformation. The internal fallout, as evidenced by numerous posts on Meta’s internal forum, Workplace, paints a picture of a company deeply divided and struggling to reconcile its corporate interests with its social responsibility.
Key Takeaways: Meta’s Controversial Policy Shifts
- Third-Party Fact-Checking Eliminated: Meta has ended its partnership with third-party fact-checking organizations, shifting to a user-generated system similar to X’s Community Notes. Employees fear this will lead to a surge in misinformation.
- Controversial Board Appointments: UFC CEO Dana White, a close friend of President-elect Trump, and John Elkann, CEO of Exor, have been added to Meta’s board, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and influence.
- Internal Censorship Allegations: Employees report that critical comments on the internal forum, Workplace, regarding the policy changes and new board members have been flagged and removed, leading to accusations of internal censorship.
- Focus Shift to “Free Expression”: Meta’s justification for these changes centers on a return to a “fundamental commitment to free expression,” raising concerns about the prioritization of free speech over the mitigation of harmful content.
- $1 Million Donation to Trump’s Inauguration: The policy changes follow the company’s contribution of $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, further fueling speculation about an attempt to curry favor with the incoming administration.
The Elimination of Third-Party Fact-Checking: A Dangerous Precedent?
The decision to axe Meta’s third-party fact-checking program is arguably the most contentious of the recent changes. Joel Kaplan, Meta’s new chief global affairs officer and a former White House official under George W. Bush, announced the shift to a community-based system in a Workplace post, stating, “We’re optimistic that these changes help us return to that fundamental commitment to free expression.” However, this justification has been met with significant skepticism from employees.
Employee Concerns and the Risk of Misinformation
Many employees voiced alarm about the potential for a significant increase in the spread of misinformation and harmful content. One employee expressed being “extremely concerned” and noted that the decision sends a message “that facts no longer matter.” Others worried about the impact on sensitive topics like immigration and gender identity, predicting an “influx of racist and transphobic content.” The fear is not unfounded; Meta had already begun scaling back its fact-checking efforts in 2024, with a spokesperson for the Associated Press confirming the end of their agreement with Meta in January of that year.
Internal Fact-Checking Project Scrapped
The abandonment of third-party fact-checking is compounded by the fact that Meta eliminated an internal fact-checking project as part of its 2023 layoffs. This internal project aimed to utilize third-party fact-checkers and experts to verify flagged content. The scrapping of this project, coupled with the recent policy shift, leaves Meta significantly less equipped to combat the spread of false information.
The Controversial Addition of Dana White to Meta’s Board
The appointment of Dana White, CEO of the UFC, to Meta’s board has ignited a firestorm of both internal and external criticism. White’s close ties to President-elect Trump and a highly publicized incident involving a physical altercation with his wife in 2023 have raised significant questions about his suitability for the role. While some employees expressed a somewhat pragmatic outlook, questioning whether White’s addition brought political advantages, many others expressed deep concerns.
Employee Reactions and Internal Censorship
Workplace discussions regarding White’s appointment were quickly met with a mix of criticism, questioning, and even jokes. Comments questioning White’s suitability or referring to his past controversy, however, were flagged and removed, leading several employees to accuse Meta of engaging in internal censorship. One employee, identified as part of Meta’s Internal Community Relations team, posted a reminder about the company’s “community engagement expectations” policy, emphasizing the need for a “respectful work environment.” This action, however, only served to further galvanize internal criticism, with employees arguing that even respectful, yet critical, posts were being removed. One employee stated, “because critical comments are being removed, I want to voice support for women and all voices.“
Concerns About Corporate Culture and Values
Beyond White’s controversial past, concerns are also raised about the broader implications of his appointment on Meta’s corporate culture and values. The addition of White, along with John Elkann, CEO of Italian auto holding company Exor, prompts questions about the expertise these executives bring to a technology company and whether their additions align with Meta’s stated values. One employee succinctly summarized this concern in a post, suggesting the new board appointments could lead to “valuable political alliances, but could also change the company culture in unintended or unwanted ways.“
A Divided Company: Free Speech vs. Responsibility
The internal discord at Meta reflects a fundamental conflict: the balancing act between free speech and responsible content moderation. While Meta’s official narrative emphasizes a return to a commitment to free expression, employees argue that this comes at the expense of combating misinformation and creating a safe online environment. The fear is that the recent policy changes will erode Meta’s progress in addressing these critical issues. The company’s response to the internal criticism – primarily the removal of critical posts – further exacerbates the situation, leaving many employees feeling unheard and disrespected.
The situation at Meta highlights the challenges faced by large technology companies in navigating the complex terrain of content moderation in the highly polarized political climate. The decisions made in the coming weeks and months will have significant implications not only for Meta itself but also for the broader online discourse. The company’s ability to address its internal concerns effectively will be a crucial test of its commitment to its employees and its users. The silence from Meta’s leadership only further fuels the fire.
