Meta seeks redemption in 2024 after botching past elections
Good morning.
With the U.S. presidential election less than six months away, and elections also happening in the EU, U.K., India, and many more countries, now is a good time for CEOs to reflect on their company’s relationship to democracy at large. One company that has done so, and seems ready for redemption, is Meta.
Meta has come a long way. Eight years ago, the Trump campaign used improperly obtained Facebook data to build voter profiles for 50 million users, and Russia weaponized Facebook to undermine the integrity of the U.S. elections. The scandals led to Facebook’s darkest hour, and forced its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, to testify before Congress.
But 2024 isn’t 2016. A crucial part of Meta’s response since then has been the creation of an “independent” oversight board. And last week, that group released its key lessons in a historic election year. These are my takeaways:
- A company should think about its principles vis-à-vis democracy and not react only to specific instances. Meta learned this lesson when it blocked former President Donald Trump’s Facebook account after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, which was seen as arbitrary. When it reinstated Trump’s account in 2023, Meta did so based on more broadly applicable protocols.
- Almost no company can be entirely apolitical. Some of the most divisive societal issues concern foundational democratic principles—freedom of speech, equality, limits on government interference—written up in constitutions and human rights charters. A company must know where it stands on such values.
- Efforts to interfere with elections often start small or in inexpensive markets. They then move to more expensive markets. Some interference campaigns are subtle, using deep fakes or somewhat credible fake claims. A company must study its weakest points of entry to ensure it’s not a vehicle for such schemes.
- Finally, oversight boards are a good idea for almost any organization. Meta’s self-governing board can be critical of the company, and its supervision ensures Meta is caught off-guard less often by user protest or complaints.
Meta didn’t get it 100% right. One shortcoming of its oversight board is that it still depends on Meta for funding. Over time, that’s bound to lead to problems. But Meta’s approach nevertheless benefits the company—and society—in myriad ways. For Meta, it lowers the likelihood of future PR crises. More broadly, it makes Meta act as a more responsible corporate citizen. That’s in everyone’s interest, and a model to follow.
More news below.
Peter Vanham
peter.vanham@fortune.com
@petervanham
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
