Meta’s ‘speech-free’ transition is attracting attention from advertisers

Mark Zuckerberg’s unexpected ‘free speech’ change to Meta’s content management system has raised concerns among publishers that it will lead to the proliferation of harmful content and misinformation on the social media platform.

Several advertising executives told the Financial Times that Meta’s move to end reality check program and weakening hate speech policies could cost the platform, where advertising represents as much as $135bn in annual sales, if brands fear their ads could be accompanied by toxic content.

“Other brands will already be scrutinizing their plans and it will undoubtedly become a business problem for both parties,” said Fergus McCallum, director at advertising agency TBWAMCR. .

The $1.5tn company offloading its online content reflects an increase in Zuckerberg’s recent push for favors from president-elect Donald Trump and his new right-hand man Elon Musk.

In just a few days, this saw him replace Meta’s global policy chief Nick Clegg and prominent Republican partner Joel Kaplan, as well as appoint martial arts expert and Trump friend Dana White to the board. of it. On Friday, the company announced internally that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, while Zuckerberg appeared on Joe Rogan. podcast saying that corporations have become “culturally unstable” and need “man power” and “celebrate more aggression”.

But the move to ditch real critics in favor of Musk’s X-invented “public information” system — where users themselves flag false positives — has rattled the advertising industry given brand safety concerns for X’s opponents. and TikTok in recent years.

Meta has long dominated marketing alongside Google, building a reputation as a relatively safe, high-return on investment and close relationship with major brands. On the other hand, X was hit by migration of traders due to equity concerns after Musk bought the platform two years ago, which reduced its revenue.

“Meta has done a great job of fixing the toxic excesses and if their new policies undo this, advertisers will quickly see and crack down on them,” said Richard Exon, founder of the Joint advertising agency.

In X, public information allows users to “add context” below other people’s posts, although this will only appear if the consensus of other contributors “opinionally” agrees that it helps.

Critics argue that most fact-checking efforts are too slow to call out lies and conspiracies than professional, trained, and user-friendly people.

Lou Paskalis, managing director of marketing consultancy AJL Advisory and a former head of media at Bank of America, said the evolution of the Meta community “creates friction for risk-averse traders “, and added that some will “reduce their trust” in Meta as a result.

Some marketing executives described feeling “concerned” and wanted more information from the platform about how the changes would be implemented.

“Brands are entering a new world where the rules of engagement can no longer be relied upon,” said Patrick Reid, group chief executive of Imagination, a creative marketing agency.

Concerns have also been raised about Meta’s plans to change its systems to “significantly reduce” the amount of content its automated filters remove from its platform.

That includes removing restrictions on issues such as immigration and gender, focusing its systems on “illegal and serious crimes”, such as terrorism, child abuse and fraud, as well as issues related to suicide, to self harm and eating disorders. Zuckerberg himself admitted that its systems will now catch “very bad things”.

Some industry executives were highly skeptical that the change would cause more problems for Meta’s ad business. “I don’t think advertisers will care as long as the platform works – but they will if the content changes,” said one senior ad agency executive.

Alex Cheeseman, head of UK business, Outbrain, said “the cold, hard truth is that advertisers will care as long as it hurts their numbers. If performance stays consistent, no one will lose sleep.” because of ‘where’ or ‘how’ their ads appear”.

During the Consumer Electronics Show this week, Meta’s chief marketing officer, Alex Schultz, said that the company’s product security measures are still in place, and the company was not ” expedite” the announcement to give publishers “time to adapt and understand”. Nicola Mendelsohn, head of Meta’s global business group, wrote in a LinkedIn post that the company will continue to invest in security tools for advertisers.

Meta’s strategy immediately changes and divides opinion within the company. One person said some employees view the high-profile upgrades as a rollback of key protections, but added that employees are “afraid to speak out” since Meta has had many layoffs since the outbreak.

One employee said that the internal response to the public information change was very positive, especially because checking information is considered a “thankless” job because one side or the other has to accuse you of to take sides.

Those who know Zuckerberg say he has long been a supporter of free speech, but he has shaped his views in response to political and social pressure over the years.

“It’s becoming a trend,” said Katie Harbath, a former strategy director who worked on Meta’s election strategy for a decade. “After some big elections since 2016, Mark is making big changes – to where the spirit of community and order is blowing. This is one of those elections.”

Zuckerberg began introducing third-party fact-checking as part of a series of measures in late 2016 designed to address criticism of Facebook’s misinformation. But this week Zuckerberg blamed governments and the “media” for forcing his company to “scrutinize more”, and accused critics of being “too politically biased”.

Linda Yaccarino, chief executive of X, said at the meeting on Tuesday: “Mark, Meta, welcome to the party”.

When asked about Meta’s new changes at a press conference, Trump said he thought the tech group was “too far”, adding that Zuckerberg was “probably” responding to threats he made against him. first.

On the campaign trail, Trump threatened to fire a social media executive over election interference and called his company an “enemy of the people” over alleged whistleblowing.

Experts see Zuckerberg’s transition as a business decision as much as an ideological one.

The CEO of Meta is pouring billions of dollars into his ambitions to become a “leader” in artificial intelligence, and is publicly promoting its open-source approach to AI as regulators around the world circle the space.

“A big reason why Mark sees the influence that Elon, (capitalists Marc) Andreessen and (David) Sacks have on Trump and they want to make sure he’s in that mix, ” said Harbath.

The move also comes ahead of the tech group facing a major antitrust lawsuit in April. The Federal Trade Commission has accused the social media group of maintaining monopoly power and using a “buy or hide” strategy to undermine competitors, and is seeking to force the company to cancel its purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp.

“In order not to destroy the company with acts of dishonesty, which he realizes can be greatly influenced by whoever has power in Washington, Zuckerberg needs to be a champion,” said David Evan Harris , chancellor social scientist at the University of California. , Berkeley and former Meta employee.

Additional reporting by Cristina Criddle in San Francisco and Clara Murray in London