Meta’s About-Face on Free Speech: Is Zuckerberg Playing Politics?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently made waves with an announcement on January 7, claiming that his company would “get back to our roots around free expression” by ending third-party fact-checking in the U.S. and lifting restrictions on speech. The statement was seen as a significant shift, hinting at a renewed commitment to free speech. However, just days later, it became clear that Zuckerberg's version of free speech might not extend to decentralized social media platforms, raising questions about whether his actions are truly in line with his words.

Meta’s Selective Approach to Free Speech

Meta's newly announced embrace of free expression quickly hit a snag when users discovered that Facebook and Instagram were actively removing links to decentralized social media platforms like Pixelfed and Mastodon. According to a report from 404 Media, users who tried to share links to these platforms were met with immediate "spam" notifications, and their posts were swiftly deleted.

For example, Bluesky user AJ Sadauskas complained that her post linking to Pixelfed was removed “within seconds,” while Johan Vandevelde reported the same experience when linking to Mastodon. These actions starkly contradicted Zuckerberg's earlier promise of promoting more speech and fewer restrictions.

The irony here is hard to ignore: just days before these deletions, Meta issued a statement declaring its commitment to reducing “mistakes” in its content moderation policies. Zuckerberg also announced the removal of third-party fact-checkers in the U.S., promising that this would allow more free expression on the platform. Yet, the blocking of decentralized competitors suggests that Meta's commitment to free speech may be selective and politically motivated.

Some critics argue that this may be a strategic move to curry favor with the incoming Trump administration, which has been vocal in its criticism of Meta and other Big Tech companies. Trump has previously threatened legal action against Zuckerberg, making it possible that this shift in policy is an attempt to smooth over relations with the new political leadership.

Tether Sues Swan Bitcoin Over Joint Venture Dispute

In another notable development in the crypto world, Tether, the issuer of the largest stablecoin, is embroiled in a legal battle with Swan Bitcoin. Tether has filed a lawsuit in the High Court of England and Wales, accusing Swan Bitcoin of breaching their joint venture agreement. The dispute centers on 2040 Energy, a mining operation that Tether and Swan launched in 2022. Tether claims that Swan’s actions, including accusations of sabotage by former employees, have led to significant breaches of contract.

Swan Bitcoin, for its part, alleges that Tether did not honor their business arrangement, leading to Swan CEO Cory Klippsten’s removal from leadership in August 2024. The lawsuit highlights the complex and often contentious nature of partnerships in the crypto space, particularly when large sums of money are involved.

Crypto Fuels Growth at Boerse Stuttgart

Meanwhile, traditional finance is increasingly eyeing the growing crypto market. Boerse Stuttgart, Germany’s second-largest stock exchange, reported that digital asset trading accounted for a significant 25% of its revenue in 2024. The exchange saw a tripling of crypto trading volumes, with clients holding over €4.3 billion ($4.4 billion) in digital assets by year’s end.

CEO Matthias Voelkel expressed confidence in the future of crypto, citing Bitcoin's fixed supply and increasing demand as key factors driving the market. Boerse Stuttgart’s success is a testament to the growing integration of digital assets into mainstream finance, and Voelkel believes Europe is becoming an increasingly attractive destination for crypto businesses, particularly in light of a favorable regulatory environment.

Could Elon Musk End Up Owning TikTok’s U.S. Operations?

As the debate over TikTok's future in the U.S. intensifies, reports have emerged suggesting that Chinese officials are considering selling the app’s U.S. operations to Elon Musk if a ban is imposed. TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, is still fighting a ban through legal channels, but bipartisan legislation passed in 2024 mandates that the company divest its U.S. operations or face a complete ban.

In response to these developments, Musk has expressed opposition to the potential ban, arguing that it would violate the principles of free speech. TikTok’s U.S. operations are estimated to be worth up to $50 billion, and selling the platform to Musk could be a strategic move for ByteDance if the ban becomes inevitable.

Conclusion

Meta’s recent shift toward “more speech and fewer mistakes” raises serious questions about its commitment to free expression, especially when its actions seem to contradict its words. The selective removal of links to decentralized platforms hints at a more politically calculated approach to content moderation, possibly driven by the incoming Trump administration. At the same time, the legal battles between crypto giants like Tether and Swan Bitcoin, along with the rapid growth of crypto trading platforms like Boerse Stuttgart, illustrate the growing influence of digital assets in traditional financial markets. Meanwhile, TikTok’s uncertain future in the U.S. continues to raise concerns about the intersection of national security, free speech, and the global digital economy.

In this rapidly changing landscape, it remains to be seen whether these developments will reshape the future of free speech, digital finance, and social media platforms.