Tuesday, The New York Times One of the richest people in the world recently made a major revelation: After funding political organizations that support immigration reform, expressing his support for social justice, and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to support local election workers during the 2020 election, “Mark Zuckerberg is retiring from politics.”
According to the article, the Facebook founder and part-time ruler of Hawaii “hated technology in both parties and believed that his continued involvement in politics would only bring greater scrutiny to his company,” and he was upset about all the criticism he’d faced in recent years, from the spread of misinformation on Facebook to its investments in election management (which conservatives disparagingly call “Zuckerbucks”). In other words, he was upset that people were upset with him, which led him to rethink his entire theory of how the world works.
This is an interesting article, and it reveals a real shift in how Zuckerberg thinks about his influence and his ideology. Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have made a non-binding pledge to give away most of their fortunes by the end of their lives. But the headline is fundamentally wrong. Zuckerberg hasn’t left politics; his political views have simply changed.
Like many fabulously wealthy people with the wherewithal to make their own fortunes, Zuckerberg now reportedly considers himself a “libertarian.” He’s spent a lot of time in recent years trying to build a personal brand as a kind of optimistic “#GirlDad.” His new political stance is not as sinister or viscerally unpleasant as Elon Musk’s red-pilled divorcee energy. But it is politics. Deciding that you no longer want to advocate for a path to citizenship as part of comprehensive immigration reform is as political as the act of advocating for it. Forging closer ties with conservative politicians in the face of years of conspiracy theories and personal attacks from them is a political tactic. Zuckerberg spoke to Donald Trump on the phone twice this summer, according to the report, and his new Republican political director tried to reassure the former president that Zuckerberg doesn’t plan to spend money on strengthening election infrastructure this year. Nothing is more political than a pleasant phone call with a man who attempted a coup.
According to the article, Zuckerberg’s efforts to block political activity among Meta employees are similar to his efforts to block political content on platforms he controls, including Facebook and Instagram. Of course, trying to silence or block political speech is a political act and reveals a sinister worldview. At least in that sense, he and Musk are not so different. Together they are building a “digital public square” where you can find everything but reported, factual news. Zuckerberg has made it clear that he is unhappy with certain kinds of political speech, including criticism directed at him.
The truth is, there is no such thing as an apolitical oligarch. Zuckerberg’s fortune was born from a monopoly that was used to fuel ethnic cleansing and collectively forget 150 years of germ theory. His wealth is maintained and protected by political structures, and his spending and strategic priorities can sway communities, newsrooms, and democratic norms. When he steps out, you notice it. But when he lifts his foot, you notice it, too.