Meta’s New Direction Is A Risk To The Brand and Customer Experience

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent overhaul of Meta’s content moderation policies has sparked controversy across political, business, and social spheres. Framing the changes as a return to “free expression,” Zuckerberg has eliminated professional fact-checking and relaxed moderation standards, aligning his platform more closely with the style of Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter).

It is hard to fathom how a declaration of reduced moderation -- in such a raw, polarized political landscape that is rife with state-sponsored bad actors and homegrown American wingnuts – could be good for Facebook members or the brand. Nearly 40% of Facebook users have either a parent or child on the site (Facebook). Surely, it is not these members Zuckerberg has in mind when throwing open the gates.

Critics argue these moves signal an ideological pivot to appease the incoming Trump administration—but beyond politics, the implications for Meta’s 3 billion users are profound. This shift challenges the trust, safety, and inclusivity that underpin a positive customer experience (CX) and risks alienating the very communities that make Meta profitable.

Meta’s Policy Shift: A CX Perspective

Meta has long been perceived as a safe haven for advertisers and users, carefully balancing free expression with safeguards against harmful content. Recent decisions to replace fact-checkers with crowdsourced “community notes” have introduced uncertainty. While proponents claim this approach democratizes moderation, critics point to its susceptibility to manipulation and delays in addressing misinformation. Advertising executives have expressed concerns about their brand safety, with some will surely scale back their investments on Meta’s platforms if harmful content increases.

“Meta has done a great job tidying up the worst excesses of toxic content, and if their new approach undoes this, advertisers will spot it quickly and punish them,” warned Richard Exon, founder of advertising agency Joint (Financial Times).

Meta’s algorithms already curate content to maximize engagement, but increasing the prevalence of political posts risks deepening divisions among users. A more antagonistic environment could drive away those who seek Meta for non-political interactions, undermining user satisfaction (Financial Times).

In a move widely criticized by civil rights groups, Meta has also terminated its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This rollback risks alienating marginalized communities who may no longer feel represented or supported on the platform. DEI efforts were not only ethical imperatives but also key to maintaining a diverse and engaged user base. By prioritizing political expediency over inclusivity, Meta risks eroding the trust and loyalty of significant portions of its audience (Financial Times).

Zuckerberg’s invocation of American “free speech” ideals may resonate in the U.S., but it clashes with cultural norms and regulatory expectations in other markets. Countries with stricter content laws may view Meta’s relaxed moderation policies as non-compliant, leading to potential legal challenges. Globally, users who value safety and inclusivity may turn to alternative platforms, accelerating fragmentation in the social media landscape (Financial Times)

Zuckerberg’s decisions appear less about principled free speech and more about political pragmatism. Facing potential antitrust action and pressure from the incoming Trump administration, Zuckerberg seems to be shifting Meta’s policies to curry favor with Republicans. As Jemima Kelly aptly noted in the FT, Zuckerberg “goes where the wind blows,” prioritizing optics over genuine leadership.

This pragmatic approach, while potentially securing short-term political peace, undermines Meta’s long-term credibility. Users increasingly see Meta not as a neutral platform but as one shaped by external pressures—a perception that could erode both trust in the brand and engagement with the platform.

To restore trust and enhance user experience, Meta should adopt policies that balance free expression with safety and inclusivity, for example:

· Algorithmic Transparency: Allow users to select independent content filters or algorithms, giving them greater control over their experience.

· Enhanced Safety Tools: Retain robust moderation systems for harmful content while providing clear guidelines on what constitutes “free expression.”

· Recommit to Inclusivity: Reinstate DEI initiatives to ensure all communities feel represented and valued on the platform.

Meta’s pivot to “free expression” represents a gamble that could redefine its relationship with users and advertisers. While Zuckerberg may hope to secure political favor and short-term stability, the long-term risks to customer experience and brand reputation are significant. If Meta cannot maintain trust, safety, and inclusivity, it risks alienating the very communities that drive its success. In an era where users have more choices than ever, the stakes for getting this balance right have never been higher.