The Zuckerberg-Trump Pact: Misinformation Over Democracy
Zuckerberg courts Trump with a $1M donation, abandoning fact-checking in favour of "community notes." The marriage of tech and tyranny demands urgent scrutiny.
In the grand theatre of American democracy, a new act is unfolding, one that raises profound questions about the fragility of truth and the integrity of democratic institutions. Mark Zuckerberg, the tech visionary turned controversial tycoon, now finds himself inextricably linked with Donald Trump, a figure whose relationship with the truth has been described by experts as pathological. The recent revelation that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund1 has ignited a firestorm, not merely for its political implications, but for what it symbolises: the unsettling marriage of big tech and political expediency in a time when misinformation and division already erode the fabric of civil discourse.
The timing and context of Meta’s donation are as significant as the act itself. For years, Donald Trump has waged rhetorical warfare against Zuckerberg and his platforms, branding Facebook as “anti-Trump”2 and railing against alleged censorship. In the immediate aftermath of the January 6th insurrection, Facebook and Instagram took the extraordinary step of suspending Trump’s accounts3, citing his role in fomenting violence. Trump, never one to forgive a slight, retaliated with vitriol, denouncing Meta as an “enemy of the people” and accusing the company of self-serving opportunism in its content moderation practices4.
Yet here we are, just months after Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in a conspicuous show of rapprochement5. By offering this generous donation, Meta appears to be playing an astonishing game of political calculus, seeking to ingratiate itself with an administration that has historically been hostile to the company. It’s a move that raises the specter of corporate pragmatism overriding democratic accountability. This isn’t just about one company’s relationship with one president; it’s about the broader implications of a tech industry willing to shift allegiances and ethics depending on the political winds6.
Consider the broader context of Meta’s decision. As reported by The New York Times, Meta recently announced the termination of its third-party fact-checking program in the United States7, a move that coincides with its adoption of “community notes” akin to those used by X (formerly Twitter). The timing is uncanny, or perhaps calculated. For years, Meta’s fact-checking partnerships with reputable organisations8 were a key bulwark against the tidal wave of misinformation that inundates social media. Abandoning this effort in favour of a crowd-sourced model, which can be easily manipulated by coordinated partisan campaigns, signals a worrying retreat from responsibility in the fight against disinformation.
“We’re going to get rid of fact-checkers,” Zuckerberg said, as if fact-checking were a luxury rather than a necessity in an era of rampant conspiracy theories and baseless claims. The implications of this shift are staggering. In a media ecosystem where truth is already under siege, Meta’s withdrawal from active fact-checking can only embolden bad actors who weaponise falsehoods for political gain. As Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and prominent Trump critic, has noted, “Pathological lying cannot be countered through mere fact-checking. The effect is to inundate public discourse until truth no longer matters.”
This brings us back to Donald Trump, the central figure in this unraveling narrative. As Forbes contributor Richard Behar meticulously documented9, Trump’s history of deceit is unparalleled in modern American politics. From his “truthful hyperbole” in “The Art of the Deal” to the 30,573 documented falsehoods during his first term, Trump has elevated lying to a form of political performance art. The implications are dire. When a leader’s relationship with reality becomes so tenuous, the democratic process itself begins to erode, leaving a vacuum where manipulation and authoritarian tendencies can thrive.
Zuckerberg’s tacit embrace of Trump’s second act, as evidenced by the Mar-a-Lago dinner and the inauguration donation, is emblematic of a broader phenomenon: the normalisation of Trump’s post-truth politics by influential elites. It’s not just Zuckerberg. Elon Musk, another tech titan, has openly aligned himself with Trump, earning the moniker of “First Buddy” and even being entrusted with a new government position, the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). Musk’s lavish donations10 and public support have only further emboldened Trump’s self-aggrandising narrative.
The risks of this alignment cannot be overstated. Mental health experts, including Dr. Lee, have long warned that Trump’s rhetoric fosters a “shared psychosis,” in which his followers internalise his lies and adopt his detachment from reality. This phenomenon has societal repercussions. “Trump’s illness is America’s illness,” Lee has argued, emphasising that his unfitness for office is less an individual problem than a collective crisis. The question, then, is why figures like Zuckerberg, who wield enormous influence over the flow of information, would choose to amplify and legitimise this crisis.
One explanation lies in the cynical calculus of power. By aligning with Trump, Zuckerberg may hope to shield Meta from regulatory scrutiny and position the company favourably within an administration that values loyalty over accountability. But the costs of such a strategy are profound. By legitimising a figure whose presidency has been described by former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly as “Crazytown,”11 Zuckerberg risks eroding public trust not only in Meta but in the democratic process itself.
This isn’t just about Trump’s lies or Zuckerberg’s political gambits. It’s about the erosion of truth as a foundational principle of democracy.
“The effect of pathological lying is to inundate public discourse until there is no more recourse, until truth no longer matters.” — investigative journalist Marty Baron12
This is the grim trajectory we are witnessing, and it demands scrutiny, resistance, and accountability.
In the end, Zuckerberg’s actions, whether motivated by pragmatism, fear, or opportunism, represent a troubling abdication of moral responsibility. In a time when democracy hangs in the balance, the role of powerful institutions like Meta should be to safeguard truth, not undermine it. Anything less is not just a betrayal of their users, but of the very principles that underpin a free and open society.
Mark Zuckerberg dines with Trump at Mar-a-Lago despite former feud — The Guardian.
Meta to End Fact-Checking Program in Shift Ahead of Trump Term — The New York Times.
Trump, Madoff, And The Art (And Science) Of Pathological Lying — Forbes Magazine.
John Kelly, the White House Chief of Staff, Is Finally Leaving “Crazytown” — The New Yorker.
THE CALVARY'S NOT COMING BECAUSE WE'RE THE CALVARY
Mark Zuckerberg's caving to Donald Trump isn't surprising. It's just another example of why we can't count on the rich to try to do what's right for this country. That's up to the rest of us.My latest blog post. Please share and subscribe for free via email on its home page.
https://musingsofanobodyweb.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/the-war-of-the-rich-vs-the-rest-of-us-social-media-edition/