Mark Zuckerberg: A Snake in the Grass

As the cultural and political climate continues to change throughout the West, public figures and companies are scrambling reorient themselves in the hopes of riding the new winds and to get in the good graces of not only the people but the newly instituted regimes. In the case of the United States, many prominent left-leaning figures, known for their contemptible conduct in the last few years, have been rebranding themselves to fit in with both the upcoming republican administration and, in turn, a new “MAGA” America.

One of those compatible figures is Mark Zuckerberg, who recently released a supposedly “candid” speech about his plans to embrace free expression on his various social media platforms, including Meta (formally Facebook). In his speech, Mark announced that he was removing “fact-checkers” in favor of mirroring X’s Community Notes, lifting restrictions on various topics like immigration and gender, and permitting a wider range of discourse surrounding controversial and politically charged discourse.

While those changes are welcoming news, they shouldn’t be embraced so quickly. Zuckerberg is in a desperate predicament and even in his speech there’s no real mention of an apology or admission of guilt. He simply blames the U.S. government for pressuring companies like his to censor content, and places fault on fact-checkers for being politically biased. In his appearance on Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg further blamed the Biden administration for supposedly forcing him to remove various forms of content, including posts that bring up vaccine side effects. The truth, however, is that Mark willingly spearheaded the censorship campaigns that emboldened both the woke and covid madness, silencing anyone who spoke out against the regime-approved narratives.

The fact-checkers were also hired by his company for the sole purpose of representing the experts who, for many years, were deemed the arbiters of truth and dictated what was admissible to be discussed. You couldn’t talk about covid, masks, or vaccines because the experts had already come to a consensus about it, and no one could talk about gender ideology because the experts had similarly reached a conclusion that couldn’t be argued against. The fact-checkers were deliberately hired to enforce this new oppressive reality. No one made Zuckerberg do any of it.

The reason that Mark has turned his back on the fact-checkers he once revered is because the very concept has not only proved Orwellian but has also been laughed at. The notion is not only ridiculous, but the fact-checkers have been proven wrong so many times that the absurdity of it all has become comical. Alongside Meta’s continued financial losses, brought in part by customers flocking to platforms like X, which permit a wider range of liberties, removing fact or “expert” checkers was the only way forward. He shouldn’t be applauded for this but laughed at for implementing it in the first place and trying to deflect blame away from himself.

When it comes to the widespread censorship which has, over the years, become a staple of social media platforms like Meta and Instagram, Zuckerberg has blamed the automated detection systems for the “vast majority of censorship.” In other words, he wants others to believe that the out-of-control censorship on his platforms was not deliberate, but rather a case of software that was simply making mistakes.

Zuckerberg’s “candid” speech is ultimately anything but candid. Instead, it’s a manipulative attempt at rehabilitating his image while deflecting blame and failing to show any genuine expression of guilt. His announcement is also an attempt to court favor with the American people but, more importantly, with the upcoming Trump administration. Like any good corporatist, Zuckerberg will lobby whichever regime is in power, hoping to both gain special privileges and starve out his competitors.

This is the reason that Mark has dishonestly promised to “work with President Trump” to protect American companies, even though it’s the likes of Zuckerberg who have engaged in monopolistic behavior by purchasing competitors such as WhatsApp and Instagram. Meta also has thousands upon thousands of patents which do nothing but hamper competing companies. If anything, it’s Zuckerberg and his “Meta” empire that is a threat to many smaller American companies, particularly in the technology sector. His newly branded rhetoric also likely serves the purpose of protecting himself from foreign competition such as ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, and Tencent which are notable Chinese competitors.

If Kamala Harris had won the presidency, continuing the Democrat regime, Zuckerberg would have likely doubled down on his fact-checkers and the continuing erosion of free speech. After all, Mark had years to undo what he had done and is only doing something now because it’s politically advantageous for him. Akin to the legacy media’s coming demise, propagandists like Zuckerberg should be shunned into irrelevance instead of rehabilitated back into prominence.