Friends!  I want to wish everyone a wonderful 2025, despite everything.

Our world seems to be coming to a reckoning, and I am really apprehensive about what’s to come, but this is the moment to be together and support those who fight the good fight for justice and democracy.

The latest news from Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, tells me that big American companies are starting to follow Trump’s lead and obey in advance. This is really extremely worrying. When our cultural and technical leaders start to give in to appeasing anti-democratic leaders, this is when we really start to worry.

This phenomenon is known as “anticipatory obedience”. It refers to the voluntary alignment with authoritarian norms or expected commands in advance, often to gain favour, avoid punishment, or ensure conformity with the regime’s perceived goals.

Individuals or institutions internalise the logic of authoritarianism and act in ways that align with the regime’s expectations without needing explicit directives.

Historian Timothy Snyder discusses this in bis book On Tyranny (2017), highlighting how Germans began to preemptively align their behaviour with the Nazi ideology before being explicitly asked to do so. This facilitated the consolidation of power by the regime.

Similar patterns of behaviour have been observed in other authoritarian countries.

The changes promoted by Meta are made in the name of “freedom of speech”, but this is a very misguided concept of freedom of speech, as it prioritises the unregulated spread of harmful, misleading, or extremist content over the collective responsibility to maintain a democratic and informed public sphere. By enabling the amplification of hate speech, propaganda, and disinformation under the guise of “freedom,” such changes undermine the foundational principles of free expression, which include accountability, truth, and the safeguarding of public discourse.

This follow the radical interpretation of freedom of speech that predominates in the American Right, which is quite different from how freedom of speech is interpreted in Europe and Latin America. 

This approach ignores the critical distinction between freedom of speech and the ethical responsibilities that accompany it. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right to cause harm or destabilise democratic structures.  Instead, it is a balance that ensures all voices are heard without allowing the most powerful or disruptive to dominate and silence others.

In authoritarian regimes, such unregulated platforms often serve as tools for spreading state-sponsored narratives or suppressing dissent, reinforcing the alignment of behaviour and discourse with the regime’s ideology. The parallels between Meta’s policies and these dynamics are troubling, as they risk facilitating anticipatory obedience and normalising authoritarian tendencies by eroding public trust in democratic dialogue.

But Zuckerberg goes further in his speech: “Finally, we’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world. They’re going after American companies and pushing to censor more.”

This is a blatant declaration that American companies will not respect the sovereignty of countries who oppose American companies practices and interests.  Call me cynical, but this a brutal reasserting of colonialism and imperialism. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression but is a reassertion of the power of capital.

Mark Zuckerberg takes this rhetoric even further in his speech, stating: “Finally, we’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world. They’re going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” This statement is not merely a defense of corporate interests; it is a blatant declaration that American companies will disregard the sovereignty of nations that challenge their practices or resist their influence.

Far from a commitment to “freedom of expression,” this is a thinly veiled reaffirmation of corporate imperialism, in which the economic and political might of American businesses is weaponised to undermine the self-determination of other countries. Call it cynical if you will, but this is nothing short of a modern reassertion of colonialism, dressed in the language of protecting “free speech.” What we see here is not a fight for universal freedoms but a naked consolidation of power by capital, using the guise of noble principles to silence dissent and enforce compliance.

Zuckerberg, who boasts a staggering net worth of $178 billion, epitomises this merger of unprecedented personal wealth and unchecked corporate power. His statement reveals a worldview where the interests of global corporations supersede national sovereignty and democratic governance. By framing the resistance of other nations as an attack on American companies and values, he positions economic domination as an inherent right, effectively marginalising any effort to regulate harmful practices or challenge exploitative business models.

This is not about protecting speech but about safeguarding profits, expanding markets, and entrenching the dominance of American tech giants. It reflects a troubling reality where global corporate leaders are not just influencing governments but actively partnering with them to subvert international norms in pursuit of their own interests. This shift raises urgent questions about the ethics of global governance and the unchecked power of tech conglomerates in shaping the future of democratic discourse.

After reflecting on all of this, I decided to leave Facebook for good after years of participating as an “observer.” It is truly unfortunate that such a once-beloved company, which has contributed so much good (albeit alongside significant harm), is heading in this direction.