Meta, the tech giant, has recently declared its intention to shift its safety and trust teams entirely to Texas, a decision announced with less than a fortnight left until Donald Trump’s transition from former to current president. This team holds the critical role of enforcing guidelines regarding disinformation and hate speech. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, expressed in a Threads post that this move could alleviate fears of content being excessively censored by prejudiced employees. Nevertheless, he left unsaid why residents of Texas are expected to be less subjective than Californians.
Intriguingly, this is only the latest in a sequence of strategic actions seemingly aimed at currying favor with the upcoming Trump administration. President-elect Trump voiced his approval of this move, implying that he believes Meta has made significant strides forward and insinuating that his own threats against Zuckerberg may have expedited these changes.
However, shifting operations to Texas might provide Meta with more benefits than mere appeasement of the political powers. Texas, along with Florida, holds the unique status of having legislation that largely prohibits the moderation of content on social media sites. In addition, the state’s regulatory system is known to be particularly hospitable towards companies.
Mirroring what has been previously done, the owner officially relocated his company’s headquarters from San Francisco to Texas in September. Observers note that a trait demonstrated in making this move from a perceived liberal state to a traditionally conservative one likely sets the stage for others to follow.
Reflecting back on a noteworthy event in 2021, an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th sparked the creation of a new law in Texas. This law prohibits social media platforms from removing or altering any content based on the political point of view of the user. The authorities of the state can then instruct these platforms to uphold certain content in the spirit of upholding free speech. A law of similar nature exists in Florida.
Lawsuits concerning this law as well as the similar one in Florida arose, eventually reaching the Supreme Court in the Moody v. Netchoice case. However, the case is now under review by lower courts after a former appellate court ruling stated that social media giants have no right to control speech under the guidelines of the First Amendment.
A senior counsel at Free Press, a nonprofit advocating for free speech, suggests that such a legal landscape could be beneficial for companies like Meta, especially if they’re anticipating rolling back content moderation. This situation could form the legal basis of challenges analogous to the Netchoice case.
Executive actions are now seen as efforts to establish a context that encourages actions without oversight or accountability from judicial or legislative entities. This point is especially crucial considering this person has become an important ally of Trump, not only through financial support for the campaign but also by promoting Trump’s campaign messages on their platform.
The relationship between this executive and Trump has further deepened as he started attending meetings with international leaders alongside the president-elect. His involvement in deciding staffing choices for the new administration is significant too. Observing these developments, other leaders in the tech industry have started aligning closer to Trump, including making donations to his inauguration fund.
It’s important to note that the roll back of certain policies didn’t start after the election. Even before Trump’s rise to power, several tech firms began to roll back pre-established protections and policies.
A senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out that the mere act of moving to Texas may not resolve all moderation issues Meta faces. They also have to comply with state laws, irrespective of their geographic location.
However, one free speech advocate suggests that there might be another lure to Texas – it’s laws around social media. If a company has substantial business operations or is headquartered in a state, that state’s laws can be invoked in future legal proceedings.
In 2023, a lawsuit was initiated in Texas against Media Matters for America, a nonprofit monitoring group. The plaintiff was a company that accused Media Matters for America was disparaging it by highlighting instances of hate speech and misinformation on its platform appearing alongside advertisements. When a federal judge in Texas decided against dismissing the case, the company reacted by altering its terms of service – future lawsuits must now be filed within Texas.
The legal, legislative, and regulatory landscape of Texas is perceived to be highly in favor of executives and companies. A conjecture raised is that companies may anticipate the national regulatory atmosphere to move towards something similar to that of Texas under a new government. Hence, they’re moving to areas where such norms are already in place in an effort to remain in compliance in advance.