Zuckerberg gives a full-throated defense of Facebook as a champion of free expression and defends Facebook policy to opt out of fact-checking political ads

In an address at Georgetown University, the Facebook chief executive called for more free speech — not less …

New York Times 2019-10-18

Context & Ripple Effects

The Georgetown address is the latest turn in a long Zuckerberg repositioning effort. After platforms were described as 'digital arms dealers' in 2018 and he promised a 'full investigation' into Trending Topics back in 2016, Facebook's chief is now recasting the company's moderation choices — including leaving political ads un-fact-checked — as free-expression principle rather than policy failure.

First-order effects

Political advertisers gain an explicit carve-out: their ads sit outside Facebook's fact-checking pipeline, so false claims in paid political content face no third-party correction on the platform.

Second-order effects

The speech functions as pre-emptive positioning before regulators: by July 2020 Zuckerberg's own prepared House testimony conceded there was 'more to do' on disinformation, showing Congress pressing exactly where the Georgetown framing draws the line.

Third-order effects

If the pattern holds, platform content rules get argued as constitutional-style speech principles by founder-led companies, while the actual enforcement record becomes evidence in a widening legislative fight over disinformation.

The trend: Founder-led platforms are reframing moderation policy as free-speech advocacy just as regulators escalate disinformation hearings, making each executive speech part of a lobbying campaign.

Discussion

@berniceking Be A King on x
I heard #MarkZuckerberg's ‘free expression’ speech, in which he referenced my father. I'd like to help Facebook better understand the challenges #MLK faced from disinformation campaigns launched by politicians. These campaigns created an atmosphere for his assassination. https://…
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Live tweeting this Mark Zuckerberg @Georgetown event on free speech since a student journalist just told me they are not allowed to ask questions. Plus they apparently collected q's from students & are picking them rather than Mark getting unfiltered ones. So, sort of free speech
@sarahfrier Sarah Frier on x
Behold Mark Zuckerberg's revised origin story for Facebook, as a way to give people voice during the Iraq war. (And compare to the Harvard Crimson on Zuckerberg's hot-or-not tool in 2003 https://t.co/...) https://twitter.com/...
@hawleymo Josh Hawley on x
Interesting. Now that Facebook is shut out of China, Zuck champions free speech. But he told me in our meeting when I asked about Chinese censorship that Facebook “always complies with local laws,” and offered this as explanation for why FB was ready to censor in Chinese mkt http…
@natesilver538 Nate Silver on x
Also it seems effed up for Zuck to cloak these convoluted standards in the guise of free speech and the 1st Amendment when, at least to my layperson's understanding, false statements of fact aren't protected speech in the US.
@ewarren Elizabeth Warren on x
Mark Zuckerberg's speech today shows how little he learned from 2016, and how unprepared Facebook is to handle the 2020 election. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
@ceciliakang fwiw i asked him directly if FB given up on entering china and (smartly) he wont say it outright, probably bc he doesnt want to tank the stock but between the lines this speech sure seems like giving up on FB China (it is also politically expedient) https://www.nytim…
@noupside Renee DiResta on x
This is quite a statement from Zuckerberg given that it took sustained public outcry and demand for Congressional hearings to get FB to publicly acknowledge the extent of what was on its platform. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@oneunderscore__ Ben Collins on x
Something funny is going on in these comments. pic.twitter.com/gW4kolgmxK
@davidakaye David Kaye on x
i wanted to like Mark Zuckerberg's speech today. here are a few reasons it disappoints. https://newsroom.fb.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@kenklippenstein Ken Klippenstein on x
pic.twitter.com/eXRRuNmkUs
@jeffiel Jeff Lawson on x
Zuck champions free speech, but fails to mention that the FB algorithm decides what billions read every day, amplifying the speech that maximize revenue. Don't pretend this is a 1st amendment matter. It's about revenue maximization. Shut down the algo and we're aligned.
@esaagar Saagar Enjeti on x
Key point from @MikeIsaac today on Zuck's speech: “He also positioned Facebook as an American internet company that wants to spread American values, unlike those in China where the internet is largely controlled by the government” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@ewarren Elizabeth Warren on x
Facebook is actively helping Trump spread lies and misinformation. Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once. They might do it again—and profit off of it.
@oneunderscore__ Ben Collins on x
At the end of it, the top ten comments on Mark Zuckerberg's free-speech Facebook livestream are all dictator-at-a-mandatory-parade- level congratulatory. Here's the most-liked one: “Thank u for best programme &also Thank u best service for humanity. congratulation 😍” pic.twitter.…
@natesilver538 Nate Silver on x
The thing I wonder about is how sustainable this is given their mostly liberal workforce. https://twitter.com/...
@nickconfessore Nick Confessore on x
Bottom line implication of Zuck's Georgetown speech and WSJ op-ed: The company is laser focused on heading off a Republican breakup attempt led by from Trump's Justice Department, to the exclusion of any concerns and brickbats from the left. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@pinboard @pinboard on x
Mark Zuckerberg asked Xi Jinping to name his unborn child (https://t.co/...), no doubt because he thought it would create a more open society. https://twitter.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
talked to mark zuckerberg earlier this week about why he's doing this speech now and what's behind it. heres me story with @ceciliakang https://www.nytimes.com/...
@kevinroose Kevin Roose on x
Lots of thoughts about the Zuckerberg speech, but gut macro reaction is that he is trying very, very hard to convince himself and his employees that they will be the good guys in the history books.
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
lmao @Georgetown and @facebook cutting off the livestream right as the Q&A portion starts is weak as hell
@sarahfrier Sarah Frier on x
I'm on airplane WiFi but seeing the tweets and have a q: Is Zuckerberg making any distinction between the right to speak and the right to have that speech amplified? Political ads, algorithmic ordering, many FB debates happen a step after speech itself.
@normative Julian Sanchez on x
It's a good thing that Nate's claim about the First Amendment here is false. Otherwise he'd have to worry that the government could prosecute him for his false statement of fact. https://twitter.com/...
@reckless Nilay Patel on x
This would explain why no one immediately deleted the bizarre, offensive, and obviously false intro about Facebook being invented to stop the Iraq War https://twitter.com/...
@epirkova Eliska Pirkova on x
No, we absolutely don't have to. Facebook's business model actively profits from spreading misinformation. This is a symptom of concentrated unaccountable digital markets, tracking of users and abuse of users' personal data. https://twitter.com/...
@timkarr @timkarr on x
Just to be clear. Yesterday, we watched one of the world's wealthiest people wrap himself in the banner of #FreeExpression in order to permit his company to profit from the lies of the most dangerous & deceitful president in modern American history. That's all t was.
@tonyromm Tony Romm on x
Biden camp replies to Zuck speech: “his choice to cloak Facebook's policy in a feigned concern for free expression demonstrates how unprepared his company is for this unique moment in our history and how little it has learned over the past few years” https://twitter.com/...
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
appreciate zuckerberg putting extensive thoughts on the record re: speech. but my biggest worry is the thing he'll never address, which is how the architecture of the platform gives a natural advantage to the worst, most divisive actors https://www.nytimes.com/...
@benthompson Ben Thompson on x
I thought Zuckerberg's speech was quite good. It's worth watching, no matter how you feel about Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/...
@vanitaguptacr Vanita Gupta on x
This is an important oped from ⁦@Sifill_LDF⁩ - please read: Mark Zuckerberg doesn't know his civil rights history. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@sifill_ldf Sherrilyn Ifill on x
Did you watch the Facebook CEOs speech at Georgetown University today invoking civil rights history to defend company policies that have been criticized by civil rights groups? Here's my response. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@marcoarment Marco Arment on x
I wouldn't say “unprepared”. Zuck knows exactly what he's doing: - pandering to FB's large demographic of conservative, older, low-information, highly defensive voters - making a TON of money from political ads - electing people who won't interfere with FB's business practices ht…
@kadhimshubber Kadhim on x
Long, televised speeches by a leader who can't be removed from power: Facebook takes another step towards nationhood https://www.facebook.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@netw3rk @netw3rk on x
not many people realize this but frederick douglas began his speaking career by rating the hotness of women https://twitter.com/...
@zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x
With just “and of course we don't allow voter suppression”, Zuckerberg smashes the (ahistorical) points he made until then—and seems unaware. Also, Trump campaign said they had “three major voter suppression operations” on Facebook in 2016 and we have had no disclosures about it.…
@noupside Renee DiResta on x
After another read of the Zuckerberg speech, what bothers me most ab this is that he positions policies they got to post-2016 as ideas undertaken out of voluntary magnanimity, as opposed to under threat of regulation, in the throes of press scrutiny, w/declining public opinion.
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
Dude. Your company is using Section 230 to defend yourself in a lawsuit as we speak. I think your very expensive lawyers just had a heart attack. https://twitter.com/...
@frankluntz Frank Luntz on x
Will be interesting to see which sides (if any) are satisfied with Mark Zuckeberg's “free speech” address today. • Liberals want Facebook to clamp down more on “disinformation.” • Conservatives think Facebook is censoring and/or “shadowbanning” them. https://twitter.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
@kevinroose Don't overthink this one, Kevin. It was just a D of a speech. Adding on lack of ability for students to ask questions after it (they were vetted in advance and they were not allowed to ask them), it was an F.
@migueldeicaza Miguel de Icaza on x
I read this and translated to English so you don't have to. Mark wants you to use Facebook services so he can charge money for ads. You are welcome. https://twitter.com/...
@dloesch Dana Loesch on x
And he's right. “At the same time, I don't think people want to live in a world where you can only say things that tech companies decide are 100 percent true. And I think that those tensions are something we have to live with.” https://twitter.com/...
@popeguilty Check Engine on x
Something I've seen go unsaid is that speech against the Iraq war was everywhere. Record crowds were protesting around the world. Everybody who knew what they were talking about was saying it was a pack of lies. But it didn't matter, because speech without power doesn't matter. h…
@ryanqnorth @ryanqnorth on x
Like Sarah says, this is a stone-cold lie. Zuckerberg started Facebook to rate how his classmates looked and to compare some of them to farm animals. We know, because he liveblogged it. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@andizeisler Andi Zeisler on x
He invented the site so he could rate his female classmates' looks but okay, sure https://twitter.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Here's ⁦@nytimestech⁩ story on Zuckerberg speech at Georgetown, but having been there this is the very exciting and clear version of a slow, hard to follow, word salad of a speech that needed another run through the edit machine: https://www.nytimes.com/... via @NYTimes
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Mark is doing a lot of word salad rather than give a really sharp answer to a complex question. Let me boil it down: They cannot control it really except for shutting it down. Taking so long in Myanmar was a “mistake.” Yeah, a mistake.
@brianstelter Brian Stelter on x
Zuckerberg says he worries about “erosion of truth. At the same time, I don't think people want to live in a world where you can only say things that tech companies decide are 100% true. And I think that those tensions are something we have to live with.” https://www.washingtonpo…
@kristenclarkejd Kristen Clarke on x
Mark Zuckerberg invokes Frederick Douglass & MLK while defending Facebook's policy allowing politicians to spread misinformation and make FALSE statements on their platform. This undermines democracy and runs contrary to everything that Douglass & King stood for. #ZuckerbergatGU …
@bakari_sellers Bakari Sellers on x
The black employee chat group at Facebook right now is probably on 🔥 https://twitter.com/...
@anildash @anildash on x
If you still work at Facebook, you can't pretend the strategy is unintentional now, or that the harms to come were unexpected. The sheer cynicism and misrepresentation of the argument advanced today is as poisonous as the political misinformation it is nominally responding to.
@mollymckew Molly McKew on x
FFS this guy still thinks he is going to be benevolent world king someday, doesn't he? https://twitter.com/...
@hunteryharris Hunter Harris on x
this is social network ERASURE and i won't stand for it https://twitter.com/...
@film_girl Chriscreama Warren on x
We all saw the David Fincher movie! It won three Oscars! Stop lying, Mark! https://twitter.com/...
@max_read Max Read on x
this is the funniest lie zuckerberg's told yet about the founding of facebook https://twitter.com/...
@profcarroll David Carroll on x
Nothing will ever beat Zuck's dishonesty to Congress under oath. https://twitter.com/...
@anildash @anildash on x
This is the core lie of Zuck's statement, an intentionally intellectually dishonest framing that allows him to maximize profitability while avoiding accountability. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@hshaban Hamza Shaban on x
As many have argued, the big problem isn't Facebook as a propagandist or Facebook as a censor, but that we somehow have to accept either scenario or some faux-neutrality, that Facebook's size and power are inevitable and justified, that Facebook, as it is, must exist: https://twi…
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
i dunno i passed out after he said that the we overcame deep polarization after world war i, the last war that was ever fought
@parmy Parmy Olson on x
Zuck: “Some people believe that giving more people a voice is driving division...” Regulators: Yeh but can we see the algorithms that amplify certain voices to millions and keep them addicted to- Zuck: “Stop curbing free speech!” https://www.wsj.com/...
@slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x
LMAOOOOOO If @facebook can't monetize it, then Zuckerberg is decidedly against free speech. https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
Free speech for Mark Zuckerberg and a simulacrum of free speech for others https://twitter.com/...
@sruhle Stephanie Ruhle on x
So Zuck is on a stage speaking about free speech... but the student journalists cannot ask questions https://twitter.com/...
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Mark Zuckerberg is just a salesman CEO who changes his reasoning based on whatever facts he can grab at the moment. Such rhetorical tactics are common among bad leaders. Zuck's thinking is mediocre and it's a testament to our bad policy framework that this man is so important. ht…
@ashleyfeinberg Ashley Feinberg on x
hell yeah, it's zuck-goes-off-on-the-pc-police time
@ashleyfeinberg Ashley Feinberg on x
lmao, mark zuckerberg trying to say that actually it's not a problem that facebook has so much power because..... now other [much more easy to regulate] entities have less power?
@sarahfrier Sarah Frier on x
About that “fifth estate” In the early days of social media regular people used it to speak truth to power. Now the powerful people know how to use it now too, with $$ to promote their messages. Is it still a great equalizer? https://twitter.com/...
@wongmjane Jane Manchun Wong on x
One of my worst fear is that China will use its market access to exert censorship beyond the border and take over the entire internet. We've seen that as the case with Apple and Blizzard Glad to see Facebook setting up an example of not caving in https://twitter.com/...
@joshconstine Josh Constine on x
What Zuckerberg didn't explain was how banning political ads would favor incumbents when they spend the most... pic.twitter.com/CFxPSRU6Uo
@rosenbergerlm Laura Rosenberger on x
Amazing that Zuckerberg bemoans the erosion of truth without recognizing his role in facilitating it. https://twitter.com/...
@adamweinstein Adam Weinstein on x
Beginning to think that eating uncooked goat is not good for your brain https://twitter.com/...
@profcarroll David Carroll on x
Adore His Excellency, World Emperor https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
Zuckerberg is giving a speech right now asserting that Facebook policy is motivated by a commitment to free speech. My reporting found that policy is set by Republican operatives in DC who are obsessed with appeasing Trump https://popular.info/...
@wsj @wsj on x
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg asserted his commitment to free speech over more aggressive policing of social-media platforms in a rare policy speech https://www.wsj.com/...
@esaagar Saagar Enjeti on x
Big change for a man who once implied he would let Xi Jingping name his first born child https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@can @can on x
$10 says we will see another Facebook crisis in the next 30 days. https://twitter.com/...
@joshconstine Josh Constine on x
Takeaways from Zuckerberg's talk -Banning political ads would supposedly favor incumbents -Fb spends more on security now than its revenue at IPO ($5B in 2012) -He wants to link American companies policing misinfo with Chinese censorship https://techcrunch.com/... tip @techmeme
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Essentially Mark is wrapping himself in the First Amendment, but not in a fresh new way. One interesting thing is to talk about social tension and pulling back on free expression.
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
Zuck calling Facebook and social platforms “the Fifth Estate” is going to stick
@dbfarber Dan Farber on x
Zuckerberg is prime minister of a virtual nation of 2.7B people. He says he doesn't think it's right for tech platforms to make decisions on free speech. He owns the podium, profits from the exercise of free speech. Who is responsible for preventing harm and erosion of truth? pic…
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
Zuck is answering the question: What would it take for you to get into China? He said censorship obviously a big issue, but also data localization. He doesn't want to have to store user data in China where it could pose privacy risks (kind ironic...)
@hshaban Hamza Shaban on x
Zuckerberg frames Facebook's critics as if they inviting authoritarianism, and Facebook itself as a bastion of democratic liberation: https://www.nytimes.com/... via @ceciliakang & @MikeIsaac pic.twitter.com/dzqD58kelB
@daveleebbc Dave Lee on x
Obama-esque punctuation in this speech from Zuckerberg. “At least we can... disagree! That's what freedom of expression...is!”. He's on the verge of emulating his accent.
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
Zuckerberg just made the China threat again. China is building its own version on the internet, he said, and exporting that version to other countries. There's no guarantee that American values will win out, he warned
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
Zuckerberg just said that people having the power to express themselves at scale (aka to a lot of people online) is a new form of power. He called it “the fifth estate”
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
He called out TikTok as a platform where content is censored, like content from the protests in Hong Kong
@sarahfrier Sarah Frier on x
Sounds like nope. In which case, Zuckerberg is framing the content debate as about censorship and American speech values vs China, instead of about the big questions (what to do about political & medical misinformation, violent live video, election interference etc going viral)
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Oh the anti-conservative bias 🆚 pro-conservative bias. Mark: “We're doing a good job of making everyone mad at us.” First laughs of the speech!
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
NEW: Zuckerberg, Inflaming Debate, Asserts Facebook Stands for Free Expression Even As Challenged with Spread of Misinformation: https://www.nytimes.com/... w/ @mikeisaac
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
“I think we are going to work through this moment,” says Mark. “Part of this is getting our issues out on the table.” Also issues of Russian trolls! We want to hear from Putin!
@kimmaicutler Kim-Mai Cutler on x
If this is a big media/political event, then he probably has way too much power to be safe for a democratic society. https://twitter.com/...
@qwongsj Queenie Wong on x
Every time Zuckerberg says he's going to give a speech, I wonder if he really will say something new or stick to his usual talking points. Most of the time it's the latter. https://twitter.com/...
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
i'm genuinely curious what he could possibly say on this that isn't some version of what he's said many times before https://twitter.com/...
@geoffreyfowler Geoffrey A. Fowler on x
When I watched Facebook's livestream of the Zuck lecture on free speech, all I saw was a stream of 👍s & ❤️s. So I left an 😡 and ... it didn't show up. As @heatherkelly discovered, this is how Facebook thinks “free speech” is supposed to work: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@jocelynhampto14 Jocelyn on x
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? RIGGED COMMENTS? On Facebook's live stream, Zuckerberg's free-speech lecture got a big thumbs up. Viewers ONLY saw positive comments during the live stream. Negative comments were shown af…
@counternotions Kontra on x
“[Mark Zuckerberg's] speech also received plenty of negative responses, but most were not visible during the talk because of how the algorithms behind a live stream with tens of thousands of viewers work.” (Algoriddims.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@heatherkelly Heather Kelly on x
Why did Facebook show almost entirely positive comments on Zuckerberg's live-streamed free speech talk? It's just the algorithm, you see... https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@fakeryanmills @fakeryanmills on x
Allegory https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@teddyamen Teddy Amenabar on x
Viewers saw nearly entirely positive comments and emoji because: algorithms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@garrethhanley Garreth Hanley on x
“There were also plenty of negative responses, but most were not visible during the talk because of how the algorithms behind a live stream with tens of thousands of viewers work.” ⁦⁦@washingtonpost https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@shawndubravac Shawn DuBravac, PhD on x
This makes me 😡 but if you're seeing this on Facebook you might see 😍 https://twitter.com/...
@miad Mia Dand on x
So it's free speech for Zuck but censorship for others?🤔"The Facebook chief executive's speech also received plenty of negative responses, but most were not visible during the talk.." https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@faizsays Faiz Siddiqui on x
This is similar to how the Uber map was found not to be showing the real-time location of cars. The ‘thumbs-up’ and ‘heart’ emojis floating over a FB video aren't a reflection of real-time reax, and the algorithm in this case filtered out angry/sad faces https://www.washingtonpos…

Chronicles