Love what we do?
Become a member for unlimited access to EIP digital and print issues, attend Slow Factory’s Open Edu, and support us in continuing to create and publish.
Join us today.
You’re logged in, but don’t have an active membership.
Join Us
All memberships give full digital access, online and in-person events, and support climate justice, human rights, and freedom of expression.
Annual memberships available too!
$20
Member —
All digital access (suggested amount)
$40
Benefactor —
Receive a monthly(ish) printed journal
$100
Movement Builder —
Become an ambassador
Question? Ask us anything!
Social Media, Censorship, and Owning our Futures
Mark Zuckerberg has decided to join the parade of tech oligarchs collaborating with the incoming regime. First, his umbrella corporation, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp, donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund. Then came the real work.
Zuckerberg has overhauled their moderation and hate speech policies in ways that bring them far more in line with Elon Musk’s approach over at the platform formerly known as Twitter, and in line with the belief system of the far right.
In Meta’s public announcement, the company tried to phrase it all as neutrally as possible. The new take on moderation was framed as permitting “more speech,” a hollow euphemism which is meant to hide more than it reveals. The real changes can be seen in the altered and removed language of the tech giant’s hate speech policy. Meta deleted clauses that forbid specific derogatory statements about various groups of people, effectively declaring open season on these historically marginalized and oppressed groups.
The clearest revisions to their policies might come in Zuckerberg’s alterations to what can be said about women, trans, and other queer people. As The Independent reported: “Gone is the clause saying you cannot compare women to ‘household objects or property.’ Also removed is a prohibition on claiming that there is ‘no such thing’ as a trans or gay person.”
The new language specifically states, “We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” And, despite growing harder to shock over the years, I was floored when I first read this. In going out of their way to declare this, Meta is doing more than just permitting this hateful speech, they’re encouraging it. Zuckerberg is deliberately putting out the far-right bat signal. We know how Elon Musk’s behavior along these same lines has wiped out 80% of Twitter’s value, but that appears to be secondary for yet another tech oligarch. Bowing down to Trump, staving off the monopoly lawsuits that federal regulators are currently bringing, and supporting the brand of politics he either believes in or thinks are most helpful to his long-term prospects all take precedence.
Zuckerberg says that the previous hate speech terms and moderation efforts were “limiting legitimate political debate.” He apparently views calling queer people and women mentally ill to be legitimate political speech now. But we can all rest assured that advocating for the freedom of Palestine, pushing back against fascism and capitalism and policing, and generally advocating for our collective liberation will not suddenly become legitimate political debate on Meta’s platforms. That is to say, there is no compelling reason to suspect that this will be anything like real free speech. Both from the example of Twitter, which has banned plenty of left-wing accounts and journalists even as Musk declares a free speech zone for Nazis and others, and from the language in Zuck’s update, even-handedness is not to be expected.
Meta’s new policies open the door to overt racism. These new terms go so far as removing the ban on calling comparing groups of people to “feces”, “filth”, or “primitives.” This is the new social media landscape we must either learn to navigate, or remove ourselves from. With TikTok officially being banned, Instagram is likely to grow substantially. We’ve already gotten a glimpse of the damage that right-wing oligarchical control of social media can do, and Zuckerberg is likely to multiply that harm many times over.
Not everyone will simply give in to this fascist push, of course. Countless people will abstain, opt out, leave social media or dramatically reduce their usage. It’s easy to forget that there is another option, however. We can choose to opt out of far-right billionaire control and create our own platforms, our own places to gather and share ideas and actually connect with one another instead of absorbing content meant to radicalize us into hating our neighbors.
As we create new platforms, we can own our words and our voices, and we don’t have to give in to giant centralized hubs controlled by the worst people on Earth who see violence and division and the world on fire and think only of their profit margins. When we tie ourselves only to Facebook and Instagram we tie ourselves to a man who is stealing Hawai’ian land to build a $100 million compound. He’s eagerly shoving AI down the throats of everyone using his platforms, not caring that it uses immense amounts of water and energy thus fueling climate change, because he has at least one bunker to run to as things fall apart— probably more.
Not only are we able to break free and create our own digital spaces, we have an obligation to do so. Millions of people have come to know Instagram and Facebook and other platforms as their primary third spaces. **The fact that these online platforms are not in fact real third spaces, nor primarily sites of human connection but rather, sites of profit generation, is almost immaterial here. The fact is that people are attempting to use them to find joy, pleasure, connection, and more. Therefore, we have an obligation to provide something better: an offramp, somewhere for people to go as these big social media hubs grow increasingly fascistic and bleak. ** Everything is Political is just one example of the sort of online future we need, and it’s just beginning. It and similar alternatives are the necessary way forward on an internet owned by fewer and fewer people who openly move further and further right.
We also need to make connections with one another, we need to build with each other and take power from those who rule over us, on and offline. It’ll take a lot of work, a lot of fight, a lot of organization, but the future of humanity and ecosystems everywhere demands it. We need a livable future, we need a future that puts people over profit, and we need a future rooted in making collective liberation our material reality. There is work to do online, and there is just as much to do in our communities. The task before us is clear, so let’s get to it.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Social Media, Censorship, and Owning our Futures",
"author" : "J.P. Hill",
"category" : "essays",
"tags" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/social-media-censorship-and-owning-our-futures",
"date" : "2025-01-13 13:50:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Josh_EIP_Article_1.png",
"excerpt" : "Mark Zuckerberg has decided to join the parade of tech oligarchs collaborating with the incoming regime. First, his umbrella corporation, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp, donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund. Then came the real work.",
"content" : "Mark Zuckerberg has decided to join the parade of tech oligarchs collaborating with the incoming regime. First, his umbrella corporation, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp, donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund. Then came the real work.Zuckerberg has overhauled their moderation and hate speech policies in ways that bring them far more in line with Elon Musk’s approach over at the platform formerly known as Twitter, and in line with the belief system of the far right.In Meta’s public announcement, the company tried to phrase it all as neutrally as possible. The new take on moderation was framed as permitting “more speech,” a hollow euphemism which is meant to hide more than it reveals. The real changes can be seen in the altered and removed language of the tech giant’s hate speech policy. Meta deleted clauses that forbid specific derogatory statements about various groups of people, effectively declaring open season on these historically marginalized and oppressed groups.The clearest revisions to their policies might come in Zuckerberg’s alterations to what can be said about women, trans, and other queer people. As The Independent reported: “Gone is the clause saying you cannot compare women to ‘household objects or property.’ Also removed is a prohibition on claiming that there is ‘no such thing’ as a trans or gay person.”The new language specifically states, “We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” And, despite growing harder to shock over the years, I was floored when I first read this. In going out of their way to declare this, Meta is doing more than just permitting this hateful speech, they’re encouraging it. Zuckerberg is deliberately putting out the far-right bat signal. We know how Elon Musk’s behavior along these same lines has wiped out 80% of Twitter’s value, but that appears to be secondary for yet another tech oligarch. Bowing down to Trump, staving off the monopoly lawsuits that federal regulators are currently bringing, and supporting the brand of politics he either believes in or thinks are most helpful to his long-term prospects all take precedence.Zuckerberg says that the previous hate speech terms and moderation efforts were “limiting legitimate political debate.” He apparently views calling queer people and women mentally ill to be legitimate political speech now. But we can all rest assured that advocating for the freedom of Palestine, pushing back against fascism and capitalism and policing, and generally advocating for our collective liberation will not suddenly become legitimate political debate on Meta’s platforms. That is to say, there is no compelling reason to suspect that this will be anything like real free speech. Both from the example of Twitter, which has banned plenty of left-wing accounts and journalists even as Musk declares a free speech zone for Nazis and others, and from the language in Zuck’s update, even-handedness is not to be expected.Meta’s new policies open the door to overt racism. These new terms go so far as removing the ban on calling comparing groups of people to “feces”, “filth”, or “primitives.” This is the new social media landscape we must either learn to navigate, or remove ourselves from. With TikTok officially being banned, Instagram is likely to grow substantially. We’ve already gotten a glimpse of the damage that right-wing oligarchical control of social media can do, and Zuckerberg is likely to multiply that harm many times over.Not everyone will simply give in to this fascist push, of course. Countless people will abstain, opt out, leave social media or dramatically reduce their usage. It’s easy to forget that there is another option, however. We can choose to opt out of far-right billionaire control and create our own platforms, our own places to gather and share ideas and actually connect with one another instead of absorbing content meant to radicalize us into hating our neighbors.As we create new platforms, we can own our words and our voices, and we don’t have to give in to giant centralized hubs controlled by the worst people on Earth who see violence and division and the world on fire and think only of their profit margins. When we tie ourselves only to Facebook and Instagram we tie ourselves to a man who is stealing Hawai’ian land to build a $100 million compound. He’s eagerly shoving AI down the throats of everyone using his platforms, not caring that it uses immense amounts of water and energy thus fueling climate change, because he has at least one bunker to run to as things fall apart— probably more.Not only are we able to break free and create our own digital spaces, we have an obligation to do so. Millions of people have come to know Instagram and Facebook and other platforms as their primary third spaces. **The fact that these online platforms are not in fact real third spaces, nor primarily sites of human connection but rather, sites of profit generation, is almost immaterial here. The fact is that people are attempting to use them to find joy, pleasure, connection, and more. Therefore, we have an obligation to provide something better: an offramp, somewhere for people to go as these big social media hubs grow increasingly fascistic and bleak. ** Everything is Political is just one example of the sort of online future we need, and it’s just beginning. It and similar alternatives are the necessary way forward on an internet owned by fewer and fewer people who openly move further and further right.We also need to make connections with one another, we need to build with each other and take power from those who rule over us, on and offline. It’ll take a lot of work, a lot of fight, a lot of organization, but the future of humanity and ecosystems everywhere demands it. We need a livable future, we need a future that puts people over profit, and we need a future rooted in making collective liberation our material reality. There is work to do online, and there is just as much to do in our communities. The task before us is clear, so let’s get to it."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Are we at a Turning Point? Trump, Israel, and America’s Endless Wars",
"author" : "J.P. Hill",
"category" : "essays",
"tags" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/are-we-at-a-turning-point-trump-israel-and-americas-endless-wars",
"date" : "2025-06-24 18:21:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/no-consent.jpg",
"excerpt" : "As I write this Trump is lashing out at Israel in a way that no U.S. president ever has, saying they “don’t know what the fuck they’re doing” and stating the simple fact that they have violated the ceasefire he announced on his social media platform. Iran is also stating that Israel has broken the temporary truce announced by Trump, with the Mehr and ISNA news agencies saying there have been explosions in Babol and Babolsar cities in Mazandaran. The initial announcement by the U.S. president, which seemed to many to be tenuous at best, and a farce at worst, appears to have collapsed before it ever held.",
"content" : "As I write this Trump is lashing out at Israel in a way that no U.S. president ever has, saying they “don’t know what the fuck they’re doing” and stating the simple fact that they have violated the ceasefire he announced on his social media platform. Iran is also stating that Israel has broken the temporary truce announced by Trump, with the Mehr and ISNA news agencies saying there have been explosions in Babol and Babolsar cities in Mazandaran. The initial announcement by the U.S. president, which seemed to many to be tenuous at best, and a farce at worst, appears to have collapsed before it ever held.The source of this immediate disintegration of the ceasefire is Israel, who clearly never wanted peace to begin with. Trump is now face to face with the reality that Israel is the belligerent in the region, attacking Syria and Lebanon and Iran all while never ceasing their genocide in Gaza and constantly and illegally encroaching further into the West Bank. For his many flaws, Trump’s approach to politics sometimes brings contradictions into focus, and here he has brought the global mainstream conversation face to face with having to admit the simple basic truth, that no U.S. administration has confronted in decades: Israel is the primary source of violence and conflict across the Middle East.All of this is not to say that Trump will suddenly hold Netanyahu and the Israeli government to account, but rather that he is now at a crossroads with the dominant Western narrative. We have reached a point, collectively, of the status quo no longer being tenable. The genocide in Gaza and the norm of endless war have collided with rapidly changing perceptions brought about by a shifting media landscape and by decades of organizing and dialogue by Palestinians, anti-Zionists across the world, peace activists and more. And Trump somehow finds himself operating near the center of this collision. He can either be embarrassed and dogwalked by genocidaires, or take material action to hold them to task. That has always been the calculus, under both parties. And in recent years both Biden and Trump have thus far chosen to willingly be undercut on the global stage rather than take any material action to halt Israel.This calculation comes from the power of AIPAC, from the massive Christian Zionist lobby, from the way presidents and others have internalized Zionist propaganda, and above all from the typical convergence of interests where Israel’s constant violence aligns with, and is a tool of, the interests of the U.S. empire and the military-industrial complex. But we might be seeing something different right now. It’s too early to tell how intent Trump is on curbing Israel, although his recent public statements do deviate from his predecessors.But what’s really different is public sentiment. The U.S. public is deeply fed up with endless war in the Middle East. It’s a sea change from 22 years ago where a few weak lies were enough to get Americans riled up about invading Iraq under false pretenses. We’re in a different era, and that may mean an opportunity for peace presenting itself.So many of us remember the Islamophobia and bloodlust that swept the U.S. after 9/11. It wasn’t just a “natural” reaction to the attack, it was a deliberately manufactured fervor, a whipping up of hatred and anger and violence. It led to two endless and disastrous wars, and between 4-5 million people dead in the fundamentally dishonest “war on terror”.But twenty years of those wars did change minds. Trillions were spent, civilians killed, soldiers died and lost limbs all for nothing. No good came from 20 years of slaughter, as the anti-war camp claimed from the beginning. Today staying away from endless wars is such a popular sentiment that Trump vaguely ran on it. Serious people never trusted him, but if that man has one skill it’s seeing which way the wind is blowing. He and his camp know what polling confirms: war is unpopular. Israel’s genocide is similarly unpopular. So the idea of going to war with Iran for Israel is, unsurprisingly, supported by only a tiny fraction of the population.That doesn’t mean the efforts to manufacture consent didn’t come around again, of course. Trump world briefly tried to convince people that we needed to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, and CNN, Fox, and other outlets gleefully took up the charge. Anderson Cooper, in his element, preached the virtue of bombing yet another nation in the Middle East. The calls for regime change (we need to bomb Iran to save the women of Iran!) rang out across the airwaves for a moment. But most people didn’t bite. Some Republicans rapidly followed their leader, like they always do, but most people stuck to their position. Despite the efforts of Zionists and propaganda outlets, people are tired of endless war.And people are sick of genocide. The impact of seeing amputee children on our phones, something that was not happening when the U.S. bombed and invaded Iraq 22 years ago, is immeasurable. The impact of independent media and critical, thoughtful, political alternatives to the corporate outlets and their narrative have had a profound impact on these conversations. Deep in our souls, with deep anger and conviction, millions and millions of people across the United States have rejected Israel, have rejected the logic of Zionism, have grown deeply sickened by the genocide Israel is carrying out. Public opinion, once firmly behind the state of Israel because of a lopsided and dishonest narrative and media environment and political establishment, has seen the truth and rejected the false story we’ve been fed.I have no faith in Trump. His comments about Israel could mean something, or they could mean nothing. Any meaningful change can only be measured through action. But it matters that the people no longer consent to war. It matters that the majority of this country doesn’t consent to genocide. Authoritarians, and all governments, find themselves on dangerous footing when they try to act without the consent of the people.Now it’s up to us to take this opposition to war and violence and sending bombs and money to Israel and turn it into tangible actions. It’s up to us to build pressure and build power. It’s up to us to stand against the military-industrial complex and take away the massive power they currently hold. It’s up to us to make noise, to build alternatives, to create new media ecosystems, tell new stories, and forge a way out of the status quo of violence. But now the people are with us, and we can move forward with that knowledge, and with the power lent to us by millions of people opposed to endless war."
}
]
}