Facebook Embraces Free Speech: The Masses Win, the Experts Lose

        The times, they are a-changing. The balance of power in the perhaps
eternal battle between the experts and the masses has been shifting
starkly, even wildly, with the former losing and the latter gaining clout.

        That's been most visible in the series of announcements and selfies
emanating from the gaudy precincts of Mar-a-Lago. The experts like to scoff
at what they consider a poor man's idea of how a rich man lives. Those more
attuned to the masses can respond that the compound was built with money
made from sales of breakfast cereal.

        The most striking shift came this week on Tuesday, and not from Mar-a-Lago
or snowbound Washington but from Silicon Valley, from a tech titan wearing
an elbow-length sweater, a gold chain, and a watch supposedly worth
$900,000, the proprietor of Meta and Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg.

        Previously, Zuckerberg has been on the side of the experts and their
efforts to control information available to the masses. After the 2016
election, prompted by the complaints of liberal elites that
"misinformation" had somehow been responsible for the defeat of Hillary
Clinton and the election of Donald Trump, Zuckerberg hired so-called
fact-checking organizations to place limits on the information Facebook
would transmit.

        Acting on the conclusions of its "fact-checkers," Facebook cooperated in
the widespread suppression, by old media and new, of the information
revealed by the New York Post about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop.

        Facebook also, as I wrote in 2021, actively suppressed articles and
arguments that the virus that causes COVID-19 came from a lab leak in
China, though it let up on its efforts when the Biden White House ordered
an investigation of the lab leak hypothesis.

        By that time, it was embarrassingly obvious that Facebook was doing the
bidding of the Democratic Party and of experts in and out of government,
such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and cooperating scientists. Rather than aiding
the free flow of information, Facebook was suppressing truths embarrassing
to experts and elites.

        In his statement this week, Zuckerberg suggested that maybe this wasn't
such a good idea. "We've reached a point where there's just too many
mistakes and too much censorship," he admitted. He promised to go back to
-- wait for it -- "restoring free speech on our platforms."

        And give him credit for some actual steps. "We're going to get rid of the
fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X." No
wonder free market economist Alex Tabarrok posted, "Elon buying Twitter is
saving the world."

        "The fact-checkers," Zuckerberg went on, "have just been too politically
biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created." Like
self-appointed experts everywhere, from macroeconomists who underestimated
inflation and public health bureaucrats who required children at summer
camps to wear masks, they're getting the back of the public's hand.

        Or moving orders. The new "content moderation team" will be moved from
California to Texas to "help remove the concern that biased employees are
overly censoring content." Translation: You can count on fairer judgments
from people in a 56%-42% Trump state than from those in the San Francisco
Bay area that voted 72%-25% for Vice President Kamala Harris. The masses
are fairer than the experts.

        Finally, the tech mogul who gave hundreds of millions to spur voter
turnout in Democratic constituencies in 2020 promises to "work with
President Trump to push back on governments around the world" that are
"pushing to censor more." Which has been difficult, he adds, during the
Biden years "when even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship."

        Perhaps we are watching just an opportunistic switch from the man whose
firm, I wrote in 2021, was "the most effective suppressor of speech in
American history." And we shouldn't forget that Trump is threatening free
speech himself by, for example, suing Iowa pollster Ann Selzer for what
turned out to be an inaccurate late-campaign poll.

        The interesting switch here is that the voters who are most educated and,
in so many cases, proud of what they consider their high-mindedness have
been the most eager supporters of suppressing "misinformation" -- and that
over the past dozen years, so much of that "misinformation" has turned out
to be true.

        Upscale liberals in this generation have seemed habitually risk averse,
eager to impose on the masses COVID-19 restrictions that provided little
protection but caused much damage or environmental mandates, such as
electric vehicle subsidies, which reduce carbon emission mildly, if at all,
but threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands.

        Such severe risk aversion is in obvious tension with the daring and
creativity of tech pioneers such as Zuckerberg and Elon Musk -- and with
the instincts of the masses, who are willing to make sacrifices for good
cause but resent being lied to and denied the truth by experts who deem
themselves their fellow citizens' mental and moral superiors.

        "Paradigm shift," The Washington Post's Jason Willick concludes. Let's see
if it sticks.

        Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner,
resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author
of The Almanac of American Politics. His new book, "Mental Maps of the
Founders: How Geographic Imagination Guided America's Revolutionary
Leaders," is now available.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

See Other Political Commentary.

See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.