Linked List: January 11, 2025

Saturday, 11 January 2025

Google and Microsoft Each Donate $1 Million to Trump’s Inauguration Racket ★

CNBC:

Google donated $1 million to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration fund, becoming the latest major tech company to try and curry some goodwill with the incoming administration.

“Google is pleased to support the 2025 inauguration, with a livestream on YouTube and a direct link on our homepage. We’re also donating to the inaugural committee,” Karan Bhatia, Google’s global head of government affairs and public policy, told CNBC in a statement.

So Google joins Amazon and Meta with $1 million company donations. Tim Cook and Sam Altman are in with $1 million personal donations. I originally posted this piece wrongly thinking Microsoft hadn’t joined the party, but they just did too. That leaves, among the big six, just one company which as yet has not been reported to have donated, either from the company or its CEO: Nvidia.

By the way, a reader pointed my way to Biden’s Presidential Inaugural Committee FEC filing from four years ago:

Microsoft gave $500,000.
Google gave $337,500.
Amazon gave $326,509.85.
Apple gave $43,200; Tim Cook gave nothing.
Neither Facebook (pre-name-change) nor Zuckerberg gave a cent.

‘Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era’ ★

Mike Isaac, Sheera Frenkel, and Kate Conger, reporting for the NYT in the best-sourced piece I’ve seen on Meta’s big policy changes this week (gift link):

The entire process was highly unusual. Meta typically alters policies that govern its apps — which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in. Any shifts generally take months. But Mr. Zuckerberg turned this latest effort into a closely held six-week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.

Months-long processes with a large number of stakeholders from inside and outside the company are the way you make policy changes intended to be as uncontroversial as possible. A six-week sprint with a tight team is how you make policy changes that you know will be controversial. The process was unusual because the nature of the changes was unusual.

In interviews, more than a dozen current and former Meta employees, executives and advisers to Mr. Zuckerberg described his shift as serving a dual purpose. It positions Meta for the political landscape of the moment, with conservative power ascendant in Washington as Mr. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. More than that, the changes reflect Mr. Zuckerberg’s personal views of how his $1.5 trillion company should be run — and he no longer wants to keep those views quiet.

This rings true to my ears, and my take on Zuckerberg. But they run counter to the Times’s headline for the story, which paints alignment with Trump as the primary motivation. I think it’s pretty clear that aligning with Trump is just the cover for Zuckerberg putting Meta’s content moderation policies back where he feels they should always have been. Zuck’s not rightwing but he’s not anti-right-wing. But for a large swath of the left today, anyone who’s not anti-right-wing is right-wing. Zuck is done trying to placate those of that mindset.

At Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg began preparing to change speech policies. Knowing that any moves would be contentious, he assembled a team of no more than a dozen close advisers and lieutenants, including Joel Kaplan, a longtime policy executive with strong ties to the Republican Party; Kevin Martin, the head of U.S. policy; and David Ginsberg, the head of communications. Mr. Zuckerberg insisted on no leaks, the people with knowledge of the effort said.

And give them credit — not a whisper regarding these changes leaked in advance of Zuckerberg dropping them in his Instagram video. Meta announced these changes on their own terms, in their own way.

Some employees were livid at what they saw as efforts by executives to hide changes to the “Hateful Conduct” policy before it was announced, two people said. While people across the policy division typically view and comment on significant revisions, most did not have the opportunity this time.

Some employees were surprised, after years of working for a company run by a face-eating founder who owns a controlling share of the company’s stock and thus answers to no one but himself, to find their own faces eaten off.

‘We’re All Trying to Find the Guy Who Did This’ ★

Good piece and great headline by Charlie Warzel at The Atlantic:

The social-media hall monitors have been so restrictive on “topics of immigration and gender that they’re out of touch with mainstream discourse,” Zuckerberg said with the zeal of an activist. He spoke about “a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech” following “nonstop” concerns about misinformation from the “legacy media” and four years of the United States government “pushing for censorship.” It is clear from Zuckerberg’s announcement that he views establishment powers as having tried and failed to solve political problems by suppressing his users. That message is sure to delight Donald Trump and the incoming administration. But there’s one tiny hitch. Zuckerberg is talking about himself and his own policies. The establishment? That’s him.

The changes to Meta’s properties, including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, are being framed by the CEO as a return “to our roots around free expression.” This bit of framing is key, painting him as having been right all along. It also conveniently elides nearly a decade of decisions made by Zuckerberg, who not only is Meta’s founder but also holds a majority of voting power in the company, meaning the board cannot vote him out. He is Meta’s unimpeachable king. [...]

Zuckerberg’s personal politics have always been inextricably linked to his company’s political and financial interests. Above all else, the Facebook founder seems compelled by any ideology that allows the company to grow rapidly and make money without having to take too much responsibility for what happens on its platforms. Zuckerberg knows which way the political wind is blowing and appears to be trying to ride it while, simultaneously, being at least a little bit afraid of it.

Exactly what I meant by Zuckerberg’s zigging and zagging and now back to zigging in my piece earlier this week on Meta’s policy about-face.