Zuckerberg’s interview with Joe Rogan was a PR stunt

During the interview, Zuckerberg tried to gloss over the financial motivations driving the multibillion-dollar company, arguing that Meta is instead driven by a desire to “empower” people to “express” themselves and achieve their goals. However, this claim directly contradicts the numerous studies and internal reports that document how the company actually divides people, disenfranchises users and restricts expression.

Echoing Silicon Valley’s common belief in technology as a means of achieving a “perfect” society, Zuckerberg said he thinks life will improve thanks to the “immersive technology” and virtual world Meta is developing. As in previous interviews, he praised the “creative economy” — work that involves more creativity than the traditional workforce — as an important contribution to this new world that will benefit Meta users. This utopian vision, however, sidestepped substantive discussions of how the gig economy, in which many of these creative jobs exist, has destroyed the material conditions of working people. Nor does it make clear that Meta’s financial viability depends on, but does not pay for, user-generated data and content.

Zuckerberg has sought to reframe his company’s public image from a corporation to something closer to a powerful democracy. He shared that Meta has a “defense” team that spends $5 billion a year fighting propagandists. He praised the “separation of powers” in Meta’s management structure because they allow the company to better “serve” the “community.” He noted that having “forms of government that are independent of us” is better than a single company or person. However, Zuckerberg’s rhetoric provides only the illusion of democracy, because in reality Meta, not its community of users, sets the community’s standards, and there is nothing binding to divide or limit Zuckerberg’s power.

At some points, the CEO deliberately deflected the conversation when presented with inconvenient facts. For example, when asked about the idea of ​​getting rid of algorithms, instead of acknowledging that Meta’s financial viability, like most of Big Tech, depends on creating and changing algorithms to predict and change consumer attitudes and behavior, Zuckerberg talked about how algorithms serve consumers by reducing business spam and delivering desirable content like photos of a family member’s newborn baby.

When confronted about other tough Big Tech topics, Zuckerberg deflected blame from his company. He said the news media is responsible for producing “critical” and “negative” content that disrupts Facebook’s mostly positive “community,” neglecting to mention that social media algorithms amplify negative news content. He argues that Twitter is a more negative platform compared to Meta’s “friendlier” platform, Instagram, because of the former’s focus on news. But again, he failed to mention how even according to Meta’s internal reports, Instagram’s design is responsible for body shaming and cyberbullying.

Incredibly, it also seems to blame users for choosing to be distracted by technology rather than “actively engaged in building relationships” because they “sit there and consume stuff.” He failed to mention that these behaviors are connected to Big Tech hacking people’s brains to promote what some call screen addiction.

But where Zuckerberg proved most evasive was when it came to censorship. Rogan questioned Meta’s decision in October 2020 to prevent users from accessing a story about Hunter Biden because they believed it was misinformation. The story, while still controversial, has been at least partially confirmed by several news outlets, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Zuckerberg claims he remembers that Meta didn’t completely remove the story, but only “reduced” access to it. And then, in what seems to be his standard PR tactic, he shifted the blame to Twitter for completely removing all related articles and the FBI for influencing Meta’s decision to suppress the story in the first place. Strangely, he claims that users can’t blame Meta for censoring content because it pays third-party companies to suppress content on Meta platforms.

That Rogan did not press the billionaire on any of the glaring inaccuracies in his statements for three hours is not surprising. That’s the job of the journalist—which Rogan certainly isn’t. Instead, the comedian-turned-pundit uses his cultural cachet to legitimize Meta propaganda, allowing his listeners to be told only what the Meta wants them to think.

As for Zuckerberg, the interview made clear how little accountability there is in Big Tech. Despite the CEO’s claims, companies like Meta are undermining democracy and undermining personal well-being. Consumers, who have created much of Big Tech’s wealth, have every right to demand and get better.

Nolan Higdon is a censored national project judge and university lecturer at Merrill College and the Department of Education at UC Santa Cruz.