Meta’s China Conundrum

Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, have been emphasizing their commitment to "free speech" since Donald Trump’s return to office. However, a recent whistleblower account has raised questions about the company’s willingness to comply with censorship regimes. A report by the Washington Post reveals that a whistleblower complaint alleges Facebook developed a content censorship system to appease the Chinese Communist Party in a failed attempt to operate within China.

The 78-page complaint, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former global policy director, claims that Facebook began attempting to break into the Chinese market in 2014. The company was willing to make significant concessions to the Chinese government to gain access to the vast user base. Wynn-Williams, who worked on China policy and left the company in 2017, alleges that Facebook agreed to host Chinese user data on servers in China, including users in Hong Kong, who had previously received stronger protections. This concession would have made it easier for the Chinese government to access citizens’ personal information.

Censorship and Concessions

According to Wynn-Williams, talks of Facebook operating in China intensified in 2015, leading to the development of a censorship system that would automatically detect and remove content containing restricted terms. The whistleblower report also claims that Facebook was willing to install a "chief editor" to oversee content on the Chinese version of the platform, with the power to remove content and even shut down the site in the event of "social unrest."

Facebook’s courtship of China continued until 2017, when the company restricted the account of Chinese businessman Guo Wengui, a vocal critic of the Chinese government. Wengui, living in exile in New York, regularly posted about alleged corruption within the Chinese government on Facebook. At the time, Facebook claimed it removed his account due to the sharing of "personal information of others without their consent." However, the whistleblower report suggests that the removal was encouraged by a Chinese internet regulator as a way to prove the company’s willingness to "address mutual interests."

Failed Attempts and Meta’s Response

Despite its efforts, Facebook’s attempts to break into the Chinese market ultimately failed. The company did launch social apps in China, but its major platforms never gained traction. In fact, WhatsApp was banned in the country in 2017, just two years after Facebook acquired it. Meta has refuted the whistleblower report, stating that it was filed by an employee terminated eight years ago for poor performance. A Meta spokesperson claimed that the company never operated its services in China and had explored ideas to do so in the past but ultimately opted not to proceed.

Zuckerberg’s Change of Heart

After it became clear that China was no longer a viable option, Mark Zuckerberg began emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech. In 2019, he spoke at Georgetown, claiming that his company stood for free expression and criticizing China’s closed internet approach. However, he did not mention the concessions he was willing to make to operate in China. Zuckerberg has since repeated his "free expression" line, using it to justify decisions such as ditching third-party fact-checkers and rolling back content moderation. He has also used it to criticize the Biden administration and advocate for the ban of TikTok, an app with ties to China, from operating in the US.

Conclusion

Zuckerberg’s push for the Trump administration to ban TikTok has raised questions about his true commitment to free speech. While he emphasizes the importance of freedom of expression, his past actions suggest that he is willing to compromise on these values when it suits the company’s interests. The whistleblower report has shed light on Meta’s failed attempts to operate in China and the concessions it was willing to make to achieve this goal. As the company continues to navigate the complex landscape of online censorship and free speech, its actions will be closely scrutinized to determine whether its commitment to freedom of expression is genuine or just a convenient PR tactic.