Meta Shows Divergent Approaches to Online Speech Regulation

Meta's latest modifications to its content moderation and fact-checking strategies in the United States are casting a spotlight on a burgeoning geopolitical tension: the divergence in how online speech is regulated. This issue is expected to gain prominence with the re-entry of Donald Trump as President.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has openly expressed his intention to align Meta's policies with those of President-elect Trump. He emphasized plans to resist international pressures targeting American tech companies, specifically mentioning Europe. The disparity between the US and EU's digital regulation approaches has long stirred tensions, as European rules often target the US's leading tech firms. These differences are likely to escalate under Trump's anticipated protectionist administration.

"The inflection point is Trump, and Facebook is just following along," observed Daphne Keller, Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center platform regulation program director. "Through these policies, Meta signals support for Trump's stance against Europe, highlighting its commitment to free speech," she added.

Meta's overhaul includes abandoning its third-party fact-checking in favor of a crowd-sourced Community Notes system, akin to one used by another platform, X. This change includes more lenient restrictions regarding negative speech about women and LGBTQ individuals, which aligns with long-standing complaints from conservative groups about excessive content removal. Zuckerberg asserts this approach will lead to fewer inappropriate takedowns, even if some unpleasant content lingers longer.

However, Meta's shift could face hurdles in regions like Europe, where laws such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) hold platforms accountable for removing illegal or policy-violating content promptly. Despite retaining measures against illegal content, Meta's relaxed approach to "lawful but awful" content may face scrutiny.

"Some digital law experts caution that DSA's broad provisions could coerce platforms to limit certain speech," explains another academic, while others dismiss concerns, arguing the law is not designed to curtail lawful misinformation.

European Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier declined to comment directly on Meta's policy changes but reaffirmed the EU's commitment to monitoring significant platforms like Meta for DSA compliance. Regnier noted that "working with independent fact-checkers is an effective way to mitigate the risks posed by these services, while upholding freedom of expression." He stressed the distinction between illegal and potentially harmful content.

Despite Meta's intentions, the need to adhere to local laws in Europe may compel the company to remove more content there compared to the US. For instance, Holocaust denial is illegal in several European countries, including Germany, unlike in the US. Keller noted that fewer European leaders now align on cultural issues like gender identity and immigration, as more right-leaning parties assume power.

"Zuckerberg's statements could provoke European regulators intent on confronting US platforms over speech issues," Keller warned. "Such rhetoric may drive regulators to assume broader powers, despite Zuckerberg accusing them of censorship," she concluded.