Mark Zuckerberg wants America to believe he has had a “Road to Damascus” conversion on free speech. Since President Trump’s return to office in January, Mr. Zuckerberg has positioned himself as a champion of the First Amendment, condemning “cancel culture” and claiming that Meta platforms now welcome diverse political viewpoints, all while ignoring the obvious subtext that his platforms are hostile to conservative speech.
It is his recent aggressive actions to silence a whistleblower that expose the deep hypocrisy of his recent and convenient conversion to a supposed free expression champion.
By now, most of the world has heard of Sarah Wynn-Williams’ bombshell book, “Careless People,” which reveals shocking details about Mr. Zuckerberg’s yearslong crusade to enter the Chinese market by creating sophisticated censorship tools for the Chinese Communist Party to use on Facebook, all the while playing innocent to the American public. According to Ms. Wynn-Williams’ account, Mr. Zuckerberg was willing to compromise every personal and political principle belonging to American citizens, including the security of American users, to gain access to the profit margins that Chinese consumers would bring to Facebook’s revenue streams.
Most disturbing is what, according to Ms. Wynn-Williams’ Senate testimony, Mr. Zuckerberg traded away to build his $18 billion business in China. America is in an artificial intelligence war with China, and it is winner-take-all. Yet Ms. Wynn-Williams’ revelations show that, for years, Mr. Zuckerberg has been transferring the technological expertise he and his company have to the Chinese Communist Party. Detailed briefings on data centers, facial recognition and, of course, artificial intelligence — all mission-critical to our country’s future.
Rather than address these serious allegations, Mr. Zuckerberg has hidden behind lawyers, invoking arbitration clauses and gag orders to silence Ms. Wynn-Williams, who, it must be said, clearly has a steel spine that Mr. Zuckerberg can only dream of. The irony couldn’t be more stark: While publicly posturing as a free speech advocate to curry favor with the Trump administration, he uses legal maneuvers to suppress whistleblowers from warning the public and lawmakers of these critical truths about his company.
Meta, a trillion-dollar company, seeks $50,000 in damages every time Ms. Wynn-Williams says something about it. Even if it’s the truth, it’s classic lawfare, where a large company uses threats of lawsuits to intimidate its enemies into silence. Even if the case is bogus, the high cost of legal fees can quickly silence anyone without Meta’s legal budget. This arbitration, which prevents Ms. Wynn-Williams and her attorneys from speaking on her behalf, is an egregious judicial and legal overstep and should be dropped immediately.
Conservatives should recognize Mr. Zuckerberg’s opportunistic pivot for what it is. He isn’t interested in protecting freedom of speech. He is concerned with protecting Meta from antitrust enforcement. With the Federal Trade Commission’s case threatening to break up his digital empire, Mr. Zuckerberg has calculated that appearing friendly to conservative viewpoints and a blatant flattery campaign with the White House might win him political protection. It hasn’t, and it’s even more insulting that Mr. Zuckerberg clearly thinks Mr. Trump is a sucker who can be taken in so easily.
Mr. Trump isn’t the only one onto Mr. Zuckerberg’s cynical game. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Josh Hawley have consistently pressed Mr. Zuckerberg for answers about Meta’s China dealings, recognizing that a company willing to collaborate with communist censors cannot be trusted as a guardian of American discourse. Like Mr. Trump, they understand the importance of national competitiveness and honest competition that will ensure America wins the AI war. Mr. Zuckerberg’s newfound admiration for our commander in chief stands in stark contrast with Meta’s removal of Mr. Trump from the company’s platforms and systematic suppression of conservative voices during the 2020 election cycle and beyond.
Let’s be clear: A genuine commitment to free expression doesn’t vanish when it’s convenient. The same Mark Zuckerberg who Ms. Wynn-Williams says developed censorship tools to help communists shut down the speech of everyday citizens is now presenting himself as a defender of American liberty. This is not a principled evolution. It’s a calculated business strategy from a tech monopolist desperate to preserve his monopoly. If Mr. Zuckerberg truly believed in the marketplace of ideas, he would address Ms. Wynn-Williams’ revelations directly, not hide behind legal tactics designed to silence whistleblowers.
The American people deserve better than Mr. Zuckerberg’s hollow free speech posturing while he simultaneously works to censor and silence those who dare speak the truth about his most shameful actions. If Meta wants credibility on free expression, it should start by allowing Ms. Wynn-Williams to speak freely about what she witnessed inside Facebook’s corridors of power.
Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.
