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 been difficult to dislodge once established. Even if newer services do break through — think TikTok — the sheer weight of user numbers usually secures a place for older networks.
As political volatility sweeps through the social media world, that certainty can no longer be taken for granted. The risk of political retaliation on the one hand and public defection on the other has created more instability than at any time in years. The forces of centralization are still powerful, but changes in audience habits and greater fragmentation among networks are starting to look like a distinct possibility.
It’s a target decision This week’s suspension of fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram 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 of directors, CEO Mark Zuckerberg continued Monday to relax content policies, bowing to Republican complaints that his networks have drifted into left-wing bias and censorship.
Zuckerberg has survived social networks for a long time. He is a fast follower of business who has been able to copy or buy his way into new fads that his industry has come up with. He is also a pragmatist willing to change with the political winds. If turning Facebook and Instagram into something more similar X by Elon Musk is the price of peace now that Donald Trump is back in the White House, so be it.
Meta’s willingness to overhaul its networks to adapt to 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 fueled the hopes of new networks, as some liberals dismayed by Musk’s stewardship of X defected to Bluesky 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 upheaval, or whether a more fundamental realignment of social media is in store.
Meta’s attempt at course correction highlighted an uncomfortable truth. It may simply be impossible to run a completely open, uncensored network and at the same time present an environment where everyone can feel safe and at home.
Efforts to resolve this underlying tension have failed. Entrusting fact-checking to independent experts, for example, was one way Meta tried to combat the spread of misinformation while distancing itself from accusations of taking a political side. This failed to appease the Republicans.
Meta now seems to be betting that a messy free-for-all will be the best way to keep the greatest number of people happy, similar to what reigned on X under Musk. But as on Xu, many Facebook and Instagram users could be turned away if it leads to an antagonistic environment — especially since Meta says it now plans to allow an increase in the amount of political content users see. Advertisers, for whom brand safety has been a constant concern on Meta’s networks, are also likely to reassess.
One dimension of this potential fracture is geographical. Although it only affects the US for now, Zuckerberg played down the possibility that his company’s latest content policy changes will reverberate globally, criticizing countries that impose greater “censorship” on US companies. Such appeals to American ideals of free speech, however, may conflict with cultural preferences elsewhere and may conflict with local laws.
A greater degree of personalization can help resolve some of the tensions, allowing networks to maintain their claims of complete openness while providing a more tailored experience for each user. That’s what Meta promised this week. But each person’s experience is still entirely determined by Meta’s own algorithms. A deeper form of personalization would give users more direct influence over the content they see, for example by allowing them to have their content filtered by independent algorithms of their choosing. Meta, however, resisted giving it up.
If Zuckerberg correctly assessed the political winds and the tolerance of his own users for change, he may have given Meta a new lease of life. But the risks of making a mistake have never seemed greater.
