Sorry not sorry: Why Mark Zuckerberg is done apologising
Mark Zuckerberg has long been Silicon Valley’s enigma—a hoodie-clad oracle of the digital age whose metamorphoses rival Kafka's The Metamorphosis. From being the awkward tech wunderkind who built Facebook in a Harvard dorm room to a 40-year-old with washboard abs, gold chains, and a penchant for MMA, Zuckerberg’s journey is a mix of The Social Network and Fight Club. But his latest transformation—a rejection of relentless public apologies in favor of laissez-faire libertarianism—feels straight out of a Frederick Forsyth novel, where cunning pragmatism often prevails.
The Mea Culpa Era: Zuckerberg’s “I’m Sorry” Phase
Once upon a time in 2016, as fake news flooded Facebook like holiday cheer at a family reunion, Zuckerberg donned his best “I’m sorry” face and promised to fix it. He rolled out fact-checkers, partnered with academics, and championed tools like CrowdTangle, which researchers adored. He even embarked on a “listening tour” across America to reconnect with the grassroots. Somewhere between photo-ops with farmers and dinner-table confessions, the world began to speculate if Zuckerberg had presidential aspirations.
But the apologies never really worked. The Myanmar genocide, accusations of election meddling, and the Jan. 6 Capitol riots only cemented the view that Facebook was more Pandora’s box than public good. Each scandal elicited more scripted apologies from Zuck and no real resolution. Meanwhile, fact-checking became the digital version of the boy who cried wolf—especially when said fact-checkers couldn’t agree on whether the wolf was wearing sheep’s clothing.
Read: Mark Zuckerberg gets fact-checked by Indian govt
Zuckerberg’s Libertarian Pivot: The End of Fact-Checking
Fast forward to 2025. Zuckerberg has bid adieu to his corporate guilt complex and announced the end of Meta’s fact-checking program. He’s swapped “trusted partners” for X-style Community Notes and isn’t looking back. His rationale? “Fact-checkers are too politically biased,” he said, echoing critiques from both sides of the aisle. His social feeds—once populated by buttoned-up photos of congressional hearings—are now filled with extreme sports and AI showcases, with the occasional dad joke for good measure.
This shift feels less like a new direction and more like a homecoming for Zuckerberg. After all, libertarianism was always baked into the DNA of his platform. Facebook’s mission to “give people a voice” has always hinged on the belief that more speech—however messy—is better than less.
The Problem With Fact-Checking: From Savior to Saboteur
Fact-checking once promised to save the internet from itself. But like many good intentions, it paved the way to unintended consequences. As Angie Drobnic Holan of the International Fact-Checking Network lamented, Meta’s decision “hurts users first,” while others argue that fact-checkers devolved into partisan referees. From COVID-19 theories to economic debates, the fact-checking industry became a battleground for cultural wars rather than an arbiter of truth.
The problem? Fact-checkers began to sound like King Solomon on a bad day—splitting hairs and hedging bets when clarity was needed most. Remember when the lab-leak theory was branded as a conspiracy, only to later be deemed “plausible” by the FBI? Or when stories dismissed as misinformation were vindicated years later? Each misstep chipped away at public trust, leaving fact-checkers looking less like guardians of truth and more like partisan players.
Zuckerberg’s Calculated Gamble: Breaking His Own Rules
By ditching fact-checking, Zuckerberg has effectively declared, “Not my circus, not my monkeys.” His decision to return Meta to its free-expression roots aligns with a broader pushback against Big Tech’s role as arbiters of truth. Critics argue this move is a win for misinformation; supporters see it as a blow against overreach.
Either way, it’s classic Zuck—a blend of pragmatism and provocation. This is the man who once said, “Move fast and break things.” Now, he’s breaking his own rules. And in true Zuckerberg fashion, he’s doing it with a smirk that says, “Don’t blame me if you can’t handle the truth.”
What’s Next for Meta: Libertarian Dream or Misinformation Nightmare?
What does this mean for Meta’s future? Will Zuckerberg’s libertarian pivot save the company or sink it deeper into controversy? Is this the end of fact-checking as we know it, or just another chapter in Big Tech’s messy evolution? One thing’s for sure: Mark Zuckerberg’s transformation from apologetic CEO to unapologetic disruptor is far from over. Whether you cheer or jeer, you can’t deny—he’s keeping us all watching.
Next Story