Meta Doesn’t Understand Free Speech

Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement to "restore free expression" on Meta’s platforms is the kind of grandstanding headline that makes Silicon Valley publicists salivate. It has all the ingredients of a good PR blitz: vague promises, a buzzword-laden initiative, and just enough controversy to keep people talking. But peel back the layers of this so-called revolution, and the reality looks closer to the same old Facebook than people may expect to be present under such a “free speech” push.

The central irony here is that even as Zuckerberg trumpets his free-expression bonafides, Meta’s rulebook still reads like a corporate novella on what you can’t say. Sure, some restrictions on "politically sensitive topics" are loosening, but don’t get too comfortable. The prohibition on "dehumanizing” language, for example, remains resolutely intact.

While few would argue for the virtues of calling someone a "cockroach" or "virus," these rules reflect a broader trend: the growing appetite of tech companies to decide, on behalf of billions, what speech is acceptable.

The issue isn’t whether people should make such comparisons—it’s that Meta has taken it upon itself to enforce a particular worldview. The ban on labels like "savages" or "monsters" is framed as a shield against harm, but who gets to draw the line between hyperbole and hate? And what happens when those drawing the line get it wrong?

…