Change is afoot in Silicon Valley. Once the archetypal censorious boogeyman of the American right, Mark Zuckerberg has recently announced that Facebook and Instagram will be moving toward an “X style” system of “Community Notes” for content moderation, whereby users can offer commentary on the accuracy of posts as a community, rather than outsourcing the final decision to bona fide fact-checkers.

While I would never want to accuse Zuckerberg of opportunism or of knowing which way the wind is blowing, it is indeed no coincidence that Meta’s u-turn on “protecting users” from mis- and disinformation came just before the second Trump administration took office. 

Trump and his allies have had it out for Zuckerberg for years, and the whole saga of the Hunter Biden laptop story and congressional subpoenas is well documented. Much has been written about the sincerity of Zuckerberg’s free-speech damascene conversion. Still, it is crucial to understand how this might play out in practice and what kinds of content we might or might not see on Meta. 

One policy area that will be affected by this change is how to deal with an explosion of online antisemitism.

Antisemitism in the United States has reached unprecedented levels since October 7, 2023. Scores of Jewish organizations, led by the Anti-Defamation League, have reported a 360 percent increase in antisemitic incidents. Indeed, Jewish organizations outside the United States have recorded similar precipitous increases. Much of this pernicious new antisemitism is happening online. Look at the comment sections of Jewish celebrities or sports stars to see that.

In light of this hostile environment, Meta took the decision in July 2024 to remove speech from its platforms that targeted “zionists” instead of Jews, specifically in cases of calls for violence and “dehumanization.” Many organizations welcomed this decision as a correction of a blatant injustice. It is difficult to deny that calls for violence against “zionists” have been much more widespread online and in day-to-day life than calls for open violence against “Jews” have been, despite the intention of these destructive calls being clear. “Zionist” has become the favorite smokescreen of the new antisemite, masking bigotry in innocuous “criticism of Israel.” Meta was right to address this loophole in its violent content and extremism policy.

As Meta seeks to foster an environment of free expression and robust debate, it should continue to enforce this change as it creates a new content moderation policy. Debates around content moderation are often framed in the language of balancing acts and finding appropriate lines. Still, there is nothing contradictory about maintaining a transparent ban on calls to violence and extremism while fostering an environment where free speech thrives. In fact, the former is essential for any such environment of fruitful discussion.

Even on X, often decried by those inclined to censorship as the information “wild west,” there is an explicit ban on speech that “we consider high in severity and likelihood of harm,” including “violent threats” and speech that amounts to “incitement” or “glorification” of violence.

X’s use of community notes to moderate content does not necessitate a weaker response to violent speech, and indeed, the free-speech benefits of the community notes system are significant. In fact, the pro-Israel X users have often found notes an invaluable tool in the fight against antisemitic criticism of Israel and the fight against misinformation.

In short, Meta has the opportunity to create the best platforms for public engagement by not throwing the sensible out with the censorship. People of all political persuasions will welcome Meta’s decision to jettison fact-checkers and opaque censorship after years of controversy and conspiracy. That said, the presence of violent speech in the online town square threatens the environment of free expression, not a consequence of it.

As Meta settles on a new content moderation policy, those who care about the fight against online antisemitism should not panic about Zuckerberg’s free-speech epiphany, provided he retains his earlier decisions on incitement and glorification of violence against Jews.