The Hypocrisy of Zuckerberg and Meta's China Policy

Yahoo

25-03-2025

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta (formerly Facebook) has positioned itself as a global tech giant with a mission to connect the world. Facebook was created in 2004 in a college dorm at Harvard University and now is used by approximately three billion monthly active users. It is an amazing company that has done much to share updates on life for individuals for both professional and recreational purposes. The revolutionary idea filled a need in our ever-expanding desire to consumer information and share updates on life with friends and family.
However, one concern with the direction of the company's is rhetoric about China laced with hypocrisy. This is especially true as it relates to their lobbying and public relations campaign to ban one of its competitors while maintaining close ties with the Chinese government. From lobbying for a TikTok ban to facilitating content censorship of President Donald Trump, Meta's actions reveal a far more complex and concerning relationship with China than what Zuckerberg would have the world believe.
Zuckerberg's overtures to China date back to 2014, when Zuckerberg actively courted the Chinese government by assembling a team to create a version of Facebook that could operate within the strict confines of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) regulations. This effort, code-named "Project Aldrin," sought to enable Meta's services to gain access to the Chinese market while appeasing the government's demands for censorship.
In his pursuit of China's market, Zuckerberg was willing to compromise Meta's core principles. In 2014, Meta even drafted a letter offering the Chinese consulate in San Francisco the ability to "take down terrorist sites that are potentially dangerous for China," showcasing the company's willingness to work with the CCP to stifle dissent both inside and outside of China. In return for access to China's market, Zuckerberg's Meta was willing to give up privacy protections and allow the Chinese government access to data on its users, including those based in Hong Kong.Beyond Meta, Zuckerberg has his own personal relationship with China. In 2014, he wrote a blurb for Chinese President Xi Jinping's book The Governance of China. He even asked Xi to name his unborn child, a gesture that demonstrated his deep respect, or perhaps subjugation, to the Chinese leader.
In Meta's transparency reports, the company admits to removing content at the request of the CCP. In 2017, Meta covertly launched social apps under a China-based company created by one of its employees, and even restricted the account of Guo Wengui, a Chinese billionaire and outspoken critic of the CCP, after receiving pressure from Chinese regulators. This selective censorship is not just about protecting Meta's interests; it signals a broader willingness to compromise its values to gain favor with a repressive regime.
Meta's hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when compared to its stance on TikTok. Zuckerberg has consistently lobbied for the banning of the Chinese-owned social media app, claiming that TikTok poses a national security threat and that it should be banned in the United States. This stance is curious, given that Meta itself has deep ties to China. While Zuckerberg rallies against TikTok for its alleged ties to the Chinese government, he fails to acknowledge that his company operates under similar conditions. Meta built its AI programs with access to data and talent from China, and it continues to work closely with Chinese nationals in senior leadership roles. If TikTok poses a threat to the U.S. based on its connection to China, then Meta should be scrutinized just as intensely for its own actions in the country.
Meta's hypocrisy extends beyond its dealings with the CCP. Zuckerberg has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to censor content in response to political pressures, most notably in his dealings with the U.S. government. Under pressure from the Biden administration, Meta took steps to restrict the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and took down posts related to Hunter Biden's laptop. Zuckerberg's decision to ban President Donald Trump from Facebook raised questions about the extent to which the company is willing to censor political speech in the name of protecting its image or political interests.
Zuckerberg's position on TikTok is part of a broader effort to secure Meta's dominance in the social media landscape. In a recent statement, Zuckerberg acknowledged that a potential ban of TikTok in the United States could benefit Meta, as TikTok is one of the company's main competitors. Zuckerberg has long sought to expand Meta's global reach, and the anti-China rhetoric seems more like a strategic move to weaken a competitor than a principled stance on censorship or national security.
If Meta is truly committed to its mission of connecting the world and promoting democratic values, it must be held accountable for its actions. The public deserves transparency, and Zuckerberg's hypocrisy must be confronted head-on.