On Tuesday The New York Times One of the world’s richest people recently had a big epiphany, according to reports. After funding political organizations supporting immigration reform, voicing support for social justice, and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to local election officials in the 2020 election, “Mark Zuckerberg is out of politics.”
According to the article, the Facebook founder and part-time Hawaiian feudal lord believed that “both sides hate technology, and that continued involvement in political causes would only lead to more scrutiny of the company,” and felt angered by the criticism he had received in recent years, from Facebook’s handling of the spread of misinformation to its investments in election administration (disparaged by conservatives as “Zuckerbucks”). In other words, he was angry that people were angry at him, and it caused him to rethink his entire theory of how the world worked.
It’s an interesting piece, and it shows that there has actually been a shift in how Zuckerberg thinks about his influence and his ideology. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have made a non-binding pledge to give away most of their wealth over their lifetimes. But there’s something wrong with that title. Zuckerberg hasn’t quit politics. His politics have just changed.
Like many unfathomably wealthy people with the resources to harvest their own beef, Zuckerberg now considers himself a “libertarian.” He’s spent much of the last few years building a personal brand as a kind of happy #GirlDad. His new politics aren’t as sinister or viscerally unpleasant as Elon Musk’s red-pill, divorced energy. But they are ~is Politics. Deciding to no longer advocate a path to citizenship as part of comprehensive immigration reform is as political as the act of advocating it. Responding to years of conspiracy theories and personal attacks from conservative politicians and cultivating closer ties with them is a political strategy. Reports say Zuckerberg spoke with Donald Trump twice this summer, and his new Republican political director tried to reassure the former president that Zuckerberg had no plans to spend money on bolstering his campaign infrastructure this year. There’s nothing more political than a pleasant phone call with a man who attempted a coup.
Zuckerberg’s efforts to suppress political activity among Meta employees (according to the article) are similar to Zuckerberg’s efforts to suppress political content on platforms he controls, such as Facebook and Instagram. Any attempt to silence or suppress political speech is, of course, a political act, and it betrays a sinister worldview. In that sense, at least, he and Musk are not so different. Together, they are building a “digital public square” where everything can be found. but Reported facts news. Zuckerberg has made it clear that he is frustrated with certain types of political speech, including criticism of himself.
The truth is that there is no such thing as an apolitical oligarchy. Zuckerberg’s fortune comes from a monopoly that has been used to promote ethnic cleansing and collectively forget 150 years of germ theory. His wealth is maintained and protected by political structures, and his spending and strategic priorities can make or break communities, newsrooms, and democratic norms. When he puts his foot down, you know it. But when he puts his foot up, you know it.
