He wakes up.

Meta Company, within which the social networks Facebook and Instagram, announced that it is changing its policy of moderating user posts in the direction of less control, i.e. greater freedom of expression. This was announced by the first man of the company, Mark Zuckerberg, and his statement was followed by comments that in the previous months, especially after the November elections in the USA, he did a lot to get closer to the future administration of Donald Trump. This move is seen by many as just another step on that path, although this one is measured in miles.

Visiting podcaster Joe Rogan a few days ago, Zuckerberg spent a good part of the nearly three-hour conversation explaining that turn in company policy. Perhaps a lot of what was said could be reduced to one point - that Facebook moderation banned and removed even points that could be heard in the US Congress. That's where Zuckerberg wondered if they've gone too far and if they're just filtering out what's harmful or brutally censoring.

Although it sounds logical, this attitude is quite wrong. Unlike social networks, not just anyone can speak in Congress, but democratically elected representatives of the people who are not anonymous and who bear political responsibility for what they say. This is precisely the biggest problem of social networks, where we often do not know who expresses certain views, with what intentions, and whether they have any responsibility if what is expressed causes damage to society.

Which does not mean that the previous moderation on Facebook and Instagram was good. But it was in line with the prevailing values ​​in American society, judging by the election results, which is the only recognized benchmark in that federation. The new results showed that the majority of society has had enough of those values ​​and wants changes, that is, a departure from the policy of stubborn insistence on diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI for short), regardless of the consequences. And they could be negative. Business people argued that the policy affected non-market wage growth and overproduction of vulnerable groups and rights that needed to be protected, which was bad for both business and the rights of those who really needed to be protected. To put it even more simply, it was not necessarily the best who got to the right places, but those who fulfilled modern social norms. Which are often driven by lucrative motives.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way, which is equally dangerous if that swing is not balanced. And it seems that it started with a vengeance and that in its acceleration it could destroy some of the hard-to-reach civilizational values ​​instead of just shaking off the parasites from them.

On several occasions, Zuckerberg referred to what Elon Musk had achieved on X. This is not exactly an example because this platform, since it is not called Twitter, has gone too far in the direction of cacophony, where the reaction to untruths and even insults is too mild, all in order to protect absolute freedom of speech. He also said that he only understood the true extent of the current policy of "castration" (quote) when he delved deeper into the circles of supporters of martial arts, which is Zuckerberg's passion in recent years. With the return of Trump, that "male culture" gets a lot of support. Now there is public and loud talk about returning gender equality to binary values. To begin with.

With its new policy, Facebook will (and already has) hit the EU regulations, where this kind of freedom of speech without responsibility is not acceptable. The platform would pay draconian fines if hatred, insults and dangerous ideas spread unchecked from its servers. This means that hard moderation will almost certainly remain in the EU, and similar will be the case in other markets strong enough to impose their own rules. What will be respected in the US will not be seen in the EU, but it is there for the VI to filter out.

One thing will not change, except for the worse, and that is the ruthlessness of Meta's algorithms, which determine what we will see first, and what will be pushed into the depths of the server, far from the eyes of most users. It's the main source of social media income and I can't give it up. And that is much more dangerous than moderation.