Opinion: Status Update: It’s Time to Pull the Plug on Facebook

There’s a guy named Christopher Langan who claims, because of his alleged super-high IQ, to be the smartest person in the United States. And maybe he is—I have no idea because I am decidedly not. But when Langan appeared in 2008 on the TV quiz show 1 vs 100, he fell short of the top prize widely seen as a gimme for a genius. And what struck most wasn’t just that he failed to win the million dollars on offer, but that he was forced to use the “ask the mob” option so early in his appearance, turning to them twice at the $100,000 level to answer a question about Abbott & Costello.

I was reminded of this moment while reading the news of Meta’s decision to suspend its third-party fact checking program, and to replace it with a “Community Notes” system modeled on Elon Musk’s Twitter. (I will not call it “X” because that’s a stupid name and I see no reason to honor somebody’s request not to deadname their company when they refuse to do the same for their own daughter.)

In an accompanying release, Meta bemoaned its previous reliance on “experts” who “have their own biases and perspectives.” Well, no duh. Presumably, Meta’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg believes that the mob has no such biases, and will do a better job of policing his platform.

Here’s the rub: he may be right.

Langam and Zuck both understand that the collective is sometimes wiser than the singular. There is wisdom in crowds—provided the crowd is interested in the truth. But when they are not, when they are more interested in inflaming the discourse or serving masters whose proclivities do not bend towards the fact-based world, they are less reliable. The Facebook moderation team’s job was to smack down untruths such as that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Or that, I don’t know, the Holocaust is an actual historical event. You know, stuff like that.

Now…?

I am always suspicious when our nation’s plutocrats murmur sweet nothings about “free speech,” because the history of the very wealthy encouraging unfettered criticism is not a very long history. After all, one thing money cannot immunize somebody against is hurt feelings.

The very wealthy among us tend to act in ways that primarily serve their own interests, and those of their hallowed shareholders. This is as it should be—if one subscribes to the almost ecclesiastical embrace of American capitalism worshipped across the upper classes.

I do not worship beside these people, but I still find myself having to deal with the repercussions of their rapaciousness. And make no mistake, it is rapaciousness. Payment comes in the form of your personal data, which is spread about like so much jam on toast.

In this, Meta is not an agnostic platform. There is no such thing. And Meta is not a free speech company either—it is a data analytics company. Its value comes not from promulgating ideas but selling products. The product it is selling today is “free speech.” I ask you: Have the Facebook users in your family, or among your social circles, become better-informed as to the issues of the day thanks to their feeds?

Was your uncle’s blunt belief that cats and dogs were being eaten by Haitian immigrants in Ohio moderated by experts telling him it was borne of lies? I suspect not. And I suspect no Community Note attached to whatever propaganda said uncle consumes moving forward will temper him, either.

Storytellers spend a good deal of time thinking of the perfect name for their project. Why was the 2010 film about Zuckerberg and Facebook’s early years called The Social Network? Because Aaron Sorkin, the film’s screenwriter, understood the irony of user-generated web pushing people further apart, rather than closer together. Because what Meta, like all such companies understands, is that we believe what we choose to believe. We do so in spite of factual information. We do so because, as Stephen Colbert articulated during the Duyba years, Americans aren’t interested in truth. Instead, we prefer that which feels true.

Any content generator or platform is, necessarily, subject to editorial whims. These whims may be expressed through an editor, an overly-meddlesome owner (such as we’ve seen at the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times in recent weeks) or an algorithm. But couching your abdication of editorial responsibility as “free expression” is no different than a newspaper turning over the creation of its front page to those who post in the comment section.

Look, I’m a writer. I’m a comedian. I have been known to haunt a comment section or two. Somewhere down the list of ways in which I identify myself, I am also an American. I will always stand on the side of free speech. What I won’t do, though, is deform our First Amendment to make it easier for bad actors to distort the truth—or to simply invent it.

Why is Meta doing this now? Because, as I said, plutocrats want to keep plutocrat-ting. In Zuckerberg’s case, that means making nice with an administration allergic to truth. It probably seems like a smart decision if he’s going to continue to compete alongside (or against?) DOGE Lord Musk, who’s purchased Trump’s ear—and policy apparatus—for the price of a few strategic ad buys. After all, what’s he to do: Use his power and prestige in opposition to the creeping fascism descending across Western skies? Or join the party? Well, he’s moving what remains of his fact-checking team to the Free State of Texas and inviting pro-Trump UFC boss Dana White to join his company’s board. You tell me what he decided.

I don’t know the solution to content moderation on social media platforms. I don’t know the solution to the global spread of disinformation. What I do know is that when the centi-billionaire owner of a sh---y social network site shares a status update promoting the elevation of “free expression” at exactly the same moment the most prominent ‘victim’ of his past content moderation returns to the White House, it’s time to hold a little more tightly to my wallet.

And my values.