How aligning with Trump's new administration lets Meta and X pivot from futile cooperation with the EU and other jurisdictions to confrontation and coercion
Big Tech's embrace of Trump is a sign of its weakness when confronted w determined state action - Brazil/EU. — timely reminder that the state is capable of disciplining capital, and has constantly tried to do so since 2008 for transformative purposes — www.ft.com/content/917c... @jwsidders : This brilliant piece by @davidallengreen.bsky.social about the weakness of Musk and Zuckerberg in the face of determined regulatory action poses a big question, without asking it: will the EU, the UK, Brazil etc bend the knee and allow Trump's America to make the global social media rules? Henry Mance / @henrymance : An excellent essay in the FT Weekend by @davidallengreen.bsky.social. — One thing I'd add: yes, content moderation is expensive. But Meta's profit margin was nearly 40% last year; net profits were $14bn. Why shouldn't governments ask it to pay to reduce the harm it causes? www.ft.com/content/917c... Ian Fraser / @ianfraser : The recent board changes at Meta suggest the social media giant is gearing up for war with foreign governments. If it plays its cards right, and if the Trump administration bullies other states on its behalf, this could be a battle it could win. — Depressing read from @davidallengreen.bsky.social Mastodon: D A T Green / @davidallengreen@mastodon.green : New, by me at FT — The coming battle between social media and the state — Behind the alignment of X and Meta with Trump is a cold business logic — and a position of weakness rather than strength — https://www.ft.com/... [image] X: Shane Conway / @shaneliamconway : Meta's free speech announcement has sparked a lot of emotional debate. This excellent @FT piece offers a more measured analysis: 'This isn't a company acting irrationally but responding rationally to a political shift to defeat a regulatory challenge.' https://www.ft.com/... Diego Castañeda / @diegocastaneda : A very interesting take on tech companies wanting to use US power to bend other countries' regulations in their favor.A somewhat new type of techno-cronyism and a valuable synergy for the US as social media can help further their goals in shaping discourse.https://www.ft.com/ ... Gideon Rachman / @gideonrachman : Super analysis by David Allen Green on the coming battle between America's social media platforms and the EU - and I hope the UK. Meta's sycophancy to Trump is because they want the US to go after the EU on their behalf https://www.ft.com/... via @ft LinkedIn: Stuart Lambert : For those with an FT subscription (this essay is paywalled) this is by a long, long way the best analysis I've read of Mark Zuckerberg's, and therefore Meta's, shameless volte face. … Lindsay Pentelow : “Moderation and fact-checking are expensive. If the social media platforms were obliged, under pain of legal sanction … Forums: r/ukpolitics : The coming battle between social media and the state. Behind the alignment of X and Meta with Trump is a cold business logic — and a position of weakness rather than strength r/technology : The coming battle between social media and the state See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The analysis places Meta and X’s political alignment against a longer retreat from expansive content policing, following the earlier shift by major platforms away from policing political misinformation. It frames determined regulators in the EU, Brazil and the UK as a counterweight to platform power rather than passive rule-takers.
The posture is already visible in Meta’s outreach: Zuckerberg urged Trump to intervene over EU penalties, while the company’s moderation changes have also prompted advertiser brand-safety concerns. That makes overseas regulation and commercial trust parallel pressure points.
First-order effects
- Meta and X gain a more openly political route to contest foreign rules, replacing a cooperative posture with appeals to US executive power and public confrontation.
- EU, Brazilian and UK regulators face platforms that may treat enforcement disputes as bilateral political conflicts rather than primarily compliance matters.
Second-order effects
- Platforms’ regulatory fights become more tightly linked to US foreign-policy leverage, raising the cost for other jurisdictions of imposing rules that Washington and the companies characterize as discriminatory.
- Advertisers and civil-society critics may scrutinize whether looser moderation and confrontational messaging increase brand-safety or misinformation risks, adding commercial pressure alongside regulation.
Third-order effects
- If this approach persists, social-media governance could fragment into competing national or regional rule systems, with platform access and enforcement disputes becoming instruments of statecraft.
- The episode tests whether large jurisdictions can sustain independent oversight of global platforms when corporate influence is paired with backing from the companies’ home government.
The trend: Platform regulation is shifting from a compliance debate into a contest over whether national governments can independently govern globally dominant communications platforms.