Business
How a Businessman Fleeing Fraud Charges Built a Life Offshore
Around midday on Feb. 2, a large wave began its slow rumble toward the Aisland 1, an 800-ton deck barge floating in the waters between Dubai and Iran. On board the vessel were its residents of more than a year: a 58-year-old Italian businessman named Samuele Landi, three sailors, a cook and five cats.
Landi — the ship’s captain — was a gifted computer programmer who in a previous life had been the chief executive of Eutelia, a telecommunications company. He fancied himself an Italian Steve Jobs, though John McAfee, the cybersecurity entrepreneur turned tax fugitive, might have been a more fitting comparison. An avid skydiver and motorcycle racer, Landi liked to live on the edge: of the world, of the law and of life itself. He had made a career of exotic offshore financial schemes; now, adrift, he had become one with them.
“I will die at sea for sure,” he told Oswald Horowitz, a filmmaker who had visited him the previous December. “I’m not going back.”
The barge was Landi’s biggest adventure yet. A rusting rectangular hulk with the footprint of a large commercial aircraft, the Aisland had a deck fitted with six blue shipping containers bolted in place. These were the living quarters, equipped with solar-powered air-conditioners and a desalination system. The barge was otherwise littered with equipment: ropes, crates, fans, tanks of oil and water, a freezer containing pounds of red meat, and a sack of reinforced concrete mix for repairs. A Liberian flag flapped in the breeze.
The story of how Landi ended up living on a leaky barge some 30 miles off the shore of Dubai is a tale of self-preservation. For over a decade, Landi had been a man on the lam. He wasn’t a violent criminal; nor was he a particularly wanted individual, in the grand scheme of things. But since Eutelia was declared bankrupt in 2010 and some of its executives, including Landi, were very publicly tried and convicted of bankruptcy fraud, Landi has been a fugitive from Italian justice — and on land, his options had all but run out.
What distinguished Landi from a run-of-the-mill fraudster, though, was the outlandishness of his maneuvers, which exploited every loophole the globe had to offer. Landi was a libertarian who sought freedom from meddling governments and their cumbersome regulations, but in a select few nations, he found willing accomplices. Landi hid money in Switzerland, skated around extradition treaties while living comfortably in Dubai, registered companies in bespoke tax-free zones, procured diplomatic credentials from Liberia, dabbled in crypto and, finally, took to the sea, where there was no one to tell him what to do.
Landi was able to pull this off thanks to his knowledge of the offshore world, and his story makes him a perfect guide to this vast archipelago of third spaces. It also “embodies all the ways laws can be evaded through these jurisdictions, whether it’s tax laws, extradition laws, regulatory laws or taking advantage of regulatory quirks,” said Vanessa Ogle, a Yale professor working on a book about the history of the offshore world. “Once you develop a mind for it, a whole range of opportunities arises.”
While he lived on the barge, Landi was dreaming up an ambitious plan to establish a floating, modular and completely sovereign city-state in international waters near the nation of Mauritius. This much-discussed concept is known as “seasteading” — like homesteading, just wetter — and its adherents are a mix of survivalists, libertarians and wannabe pirates.
Landi’s barge was a heap, but he was able to keep it afloat in the relatively calm waters of the Persian Gulf by pumping out water and having his crew patch holes when it sprang a leak.
On that day in February, though, their repairs did not hold, and the offshore existence that Landi had built for himself was suddenly imperiled: not by the laws of nations, for once, but by the laws of nature.
Tax Shelters and a Timely Escape
As far as anyone can prove, Samuele Landi lived as a law-abiding private citizen in Arezzo, Italy, until his 30s, when he started working in the telecommunications industry. Landi’s first company, Plug It International, bought easy-to-remember phone numbers from the Italian government, then leased them out at a premium to dial-in fortune tellers, astrologers, weather reports and, of course, phone sex operators. Plug It was fined for misleading consumers about its fees.
In 2003, Plug It merged with another company to become Eutelia, a phone and internet provider. Eutelia was largely a family affair — there were Landis serving as managers and executives, Landis controlling shares and Landis expanding the business abroad. Samuele Landi, who served as Eutelia’s chief executive alongside two of his brothers, led the company as its shares began trading on the Milan Stock Exchange in 2004.
In 2006, the Italian financial police began auditing Eutelia’s books for possible fraud. The authorities discovered plenty — tens of millions of euros were improperly accounted for — and, in the process, found themselves immersed in the ways of the offshore financial world.
Starting as early as 2002, according to sentencing documents from Arezzo’s criminal court, Samuele Landi and five of his relatives had used a series of falsified or inaccurate invoices to siphon money from the business and into tax shelters around the world: a shell company on the Polynesian island of Niue; a UBS account in Monaco; a Romanian L.L.C. in Bucharest fully owned by a Swiss firm. The corporate vehicles they used had few or no employees, produced no tangible work and, according to prosecutors, existed primarily for the purpose of draining Eutelia’s coffers.
Circuitous international grifts aren’t uncommon — consider the revelations in the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers and other data leaks that detailed how wealthy companies and individuals hide money through complex offshore entities. But Eutelia was a middling business in an ordinary Tuscan town, not a high-flying family office or a lawyered-up conglomerate with branches around the world.
Samuele Landi contested Eutelia’s insolvency. He was also antagonizing employees. In November 2009, while investigations into Eutelia were underway, employees of a Eutelia division that had been spun off occupied their offices in Rome. They camped out in their cubicles for two weeks, complaining that they hadn’t been paid in months. The workers blamed Landi — who was still in charge — for their troubles, and an image of Landi posing, pirate-style, with a cartoon-villain expression and a cutlass between his teeth became a symbol for Eutelia’s misdeeds.
Landi hit back in a manner more befitting a mob boss than a telecom executive. With 15 private guards by his side, he marched into the offices at 5 a.m. one November day, aiming to disrupt the sit-in. Wielding crowbars, the men dragged the workers out of the offices and into the lobby. A television reporter covering the occupation then called the police, who took Landi and his men away.
By the time Eutelia’s court date came around, Landi had high-tailed it for Dubai. At the time, the city-state levied no taxes on foreign citizens, had no extradition agreement with Italy and was developing a reputation as a place where criminals — and their money — could find safe haven.
These accommodations allowed Landi to establish himself quietly in the United Arab Emirates, and to move his wife and their children there.
In the city full of expatriates, Landi blended in. Professionally, he picked up where he had left off. In 2010, he registered Kryptotel, an encrypted mobile-phone software company, in Internet City, one of Dubai’s many free economic zones — gated enclaves where foreign companies enjoy special perks.
At Kryptotel, Landi hired Italians — among them, an old skydiving pal, according to LinkedIn. Commenting on a Facebook thread about his exploits, Landi wrote that he had sought out clients who could pay him in cryptocurrencies and would convert the digital currencies into dollars or dirhams when he needed cash.
Landi clearly had access to funds, though how much of the Eutelia loot ended up in his pockets and for how long was not clear. In the sentencing document, Italian prosecutors noted that Landi previously had access to accounts at the Banca della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano and Julius Baer, a Swiss private bank that reached a half-billion-dollar settlement in 2016 with the United States for helping rich Americans avoid tax. Additionally, Landi had power of attorney over a bank vault and other accounts.
Whatever his net worth, it was enough for a $10,000-a-month villa, a driver and car, private school for his children and trips abroad for his family.
From his villa in Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah, an archipelago of man-made islands, Landi followed the news as lawsuits against him, his family members and other Eutelia executives made their way through the Italian courts. In 2015, Arezzo’s criminal court sentenced Landi’s uncle, cousin and brother to between two and four and a half years in prison for fraudulent bankruptcy and misappropriation of funds. Their appeals failed, and the uncle died in 2016. Two other brothers took plea bargains. The surviving Landis served their time mostly under house arrest because they had no prior convictions, according to a prosecutor.
Samuele Landi’s exit, which made headlines back home, had caused tension within the family, said Paolo Casalini, a friend of Landi’s and a former editor of a local news site, Informarezzo.com, which Landi bought and took over in July 2022. “His brothers didn’t even talk to him anymore,” said Casalini, who was in regular touch with Landi over the years.
(Landi’s wife and sons did not respond to requests for comment; neither did the family members named in the lawsuits. His eldest daughter sent a brief statement saying her father was “a really kind person.”)
Samuele Landi was sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison in absentia for his role in Eutelia’s insolvency, but in Dubai, he was untouchable. There were hometown rumors that he had been arrested in 2017, but Casalini said Landi shrugged them off by sending a photo of himself on the beach, reading the newspaper: “Landi felt safe in Dubai,” Casalini said.
I asked if Landi seemed to miss Arezzo.
“He would say no,” Casalini said. “He said, ‘I’d only come back here for my mother.’”
The Perks of Diplomatic Immunity
On March 22, 2022, Liberia’s president, George Weah, landed in Dubai for a diplomatic visit. At the terminal, a delegation of Liberian officials was there to greet him. Standing a good half-foot taller than his peers was a man with a shiny, white, bald head: Samuele Landi.
Landi was there in his capacity as Liberia’s honorary consul general to Dubai. He had found yet another loophole. This appointment by Liberia — a country he was never a resident of and to which he had no connection by blood or marriage — had effectively granted him immunity from prosecution in Dubai by making him a diplomatic envoy.
He had made his first inroads in Liberia during his Eutelia days, when the firm bought a 60 percent stake worth $21 million in a Monrovia company called Netcom Liberia. For an offshore man of mystery and ill repute, a diplomatic post is a protective cloak that brings with it varying degrees of immunity, not to mention an alternative passport to travel and transact with; a new identity untethered from the past; and a noble (honorable, even) foil.
In the offshore world, this is a “time-honored strategy” going back to the 1920s, Vanessa Ogle, the historian, said. “Honorary consuls can move assets across borders,” she said. “They can have cars with diplomatic plates, the immunity and privilege of not being searched and a diplomatic pouch” to conceal documents. In 2022, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found 500 current and former honorary consuls had been accused of crimes or embroiled in controversy.
Many honorary consul gigs are just for show. Not Landi’s. According to three people who spent time with Landi in Dubai, he threw himself into the job, soliciting funds from wealthy Arab donors to build a hospital near Monrovia and hosting a Liberian Independence Day party at his home. He even used his consular powers to help repatriate over dozens of Liberian domestic workers who had been trafficked into Oman. (Alieu Massaquoi, Liberia’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, said in a WhatsApp message that he had not met Landi in person and that his office had no record of him. Massaquoi was appointed to his post in 2023, after Landi had moved offshore.)
Landi also used his time in Dubai to consult for a start-up run by an Emirati sheikh. The company, Blue Carbon, made plans to buy up large areas of Liberian forest to offset carbon emissions.
In May 2022, after a Liberian businessman in the United States was apprehended with a fake diplomatic credential, Liberia declared it would recall all of its diplomatic passports. That summer, the Emirates extradited an Italian drug trafficker and mobster who had been living in Dubai for years.
At this point, Landi mapped out his next move: one that took him offshore not just in a metaphorical sense, but in a physical one, too.
The Final Frontier
Landi surprised almost everybody when he moved onto the Aisland 1 on Dec. 22, 2022, with a stray cat and four kittens he had found in a box. His colleagues and friends knew nothing of his plans.
“He wanted to keep his barge a surprise,” said Casalini, who learned of Landi’s move after he posted about it online. “I’m a calm person, but my response was, ‘Are you mad?’”
It was a reasonable question. Landi had begun cryptically speaking, in interviews, about wanting to “escape the Matrix” — a metaphor from the 1999 movie for letting go of constructed social norms and false beliefs.
“He believed we live in a world where we are always being surveilled and manipulated — by 5G, by the Covid vaccines,” said Clément Bonnerot, a journalist with Le Monde who had interviewed Landi while he was at sea. “He identified as a hunted, persecuted man, for whom the most important thing was to be free.”
In December 2023, he told Tony Olsen, a libertarian podcaster: “If you are libertarian like we are, you want your freedom. And your freedom is finished when the freedom of others starts. This is the key point.”
Landi was adept at living at sea. He grew vegetables and made plans to bring aboard chickens and cattle. He wrote a blog, extolling the barge’s lack of mosquitoes and the stunning sunsets and posted lighthearted articles about his adventures. (These have all since been taken down.) He relied on his crew, on semiregular deliveries of food and supplies from Dubai and on his Starlink satellite connection, which allowed him to keep Kryptotel, his cellphone company, in business.
Still, Landi had no illusions about the longevity of his setup. “For the moment,” he told Olsen, the podcaster, from one of his blue containers, Dubai “is tolerating us, but we cannot stay.”
The used barge, which he said he had bought for $200,000, was falling apart, too, to the point that Landi and his men had to teach themselves aquatic welding. “From inside, there are certain dangers because you are exposed to gas,” he told Olsen. “But if you weld from outside, it’s more difficult because you’re in a scuba diving suit fighting the current and waves.”
On land, in the world of nation-states, Landi had reached the end of the line. And that little voice that had led him far from home, under fictitious flags, to inhabit man-made isles and extraterritorial havens, was now telling him to construct a nation of his own.
He would buy a new barge, twice as large, that he would anchor in the Saya de Malha Bank, midway between Seychelles and Mauritius. He would invite friends, family and like-minded libertarians to join him.
Landi even had an architect draw up plans. “On the top deck, he needed a spot where a Gatling gun was going to be mounted,” said Peter de Vries, a designer. “That’s one of these guns that fires 1,000 rounds a minute — very heavy-duty stuff,” he continued. “I actually got the specs for the gun.”
I asked de Vries: Was Landi scared of pirates, the state, his personal enemies?
“Probably all of the above,” de Vries replied. “The world.”
Nevertheless, Landi seemed as cheerful as ever. In footage that Oswald Horowitz, the filmmaker, took late in late 2023, Landi cuts the figure of a self-actualized man. His skin is not so much sunburned as glowing, his laugh is mirthful, and his demeanor determined and a little droll, as though he saw the humor in his predicament.
His endeavor might sound like lunacy to most people — a country, on a barge, in international waters, with guns? — but for a veteran of offshore affairs like Landi, it adhered to a certain logic.
The universe in which Landi had sought shelter is not so exceptional, after all. In fact, it is all around us, hiding in plain sight. We might buy a bottle of Scotch in a duty-free shop, or vacation on a cruise ship with Panama’s or Liberia’s lightly regulated flag of convenience. We might gamble in a casino or admire a da Vinci that has spent decades in an extraterritorial warehouse. Our clothes, our electronics, the computers we use for our desk jobs are likely to have been manufactured in special economic zones by global companies that behave more or less like Samuele Landi: hopping from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in order to make money and shield themselves as best they can from fiscal, regulatory, legal or environmental responsibilities.
Landi turned this ethos into a lifestyle. On the run, he made a life in the spaces above, beneath and between nations
Landi sent his last message to Horowitz on New Year’s Eve. It read: “Move or die.”
A month later, Landi’s barge was around 30 miles from the Dubai coast when the rogue wave hit, breaching the hull and apparently breaking the barge in two. Two members of Landi’s crew survived by clinging onto pieces of wood until a passing vessel rescued them the next day. Landi and the two remaining seafarers were not so lucky.
According to Italian news reports, Landi put out a call for help, but it didn’t come in time.
His body was found several days later, when it washed up on the beach about 40 miles up the coastline from Dubai. A relative flew out to identify the body.
In the seasteading community, Landi is remembered as a heroic figure. “Samuele Landi was the first seasteader to live in international waters for more than a year,” Joe Quirk, the president of the Seasteading Institute, a California nonprofit, wrote in an email. But the organization declined to endorse or recommend his exploits. “Barges,” Quirk wrote, “are not safe.”
Back in Arezzo, not everyone is convinced that Samuele Landi is deceased; rumors swirl about the lack of DNA evidence, and even the city’s mayor can’t quite believe that Arezzo’s most notorious exile is gone.
This was a man who found his way around everything: rules, taxes, borders, the law. Surely, Samuele Landi would resurface.
Sabika Shah Povia contributed reporting.
Business
Mark Zuckerberg’s Political Evolution, From Apologies to No More Apologies
In November 2016, as Facebook was being blamed for a torrent of fake news and conspiracy theories swirling around the first election of Donald J. Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of the social network, wrote an apologetic post.
In his message, Mr. Zuckerberg announced a series of steps he planned to take to grapple with false and misleading information on Facebook, such as working with fact-checkers.
“The bottom line is: we take misinformation seriously,” he wrote in a personal Facebook post. “There are many respected fact checking organizations,” he added, “and, while we have reached out to some, we plan to learn from many more.”
Eight years later, Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said.
It was the latest step in a transformation of Mr. Zuckerberg. In recent years, the chief executive, now 40, has stepped away from his mea culpa approach to problems on his social platforms. Fed up with what has seemed at times to be unceasing criticism of his company, he has told executives close to him that he wants to return to his original thinking on free speech, which involves a lighter hand in content moderation.
Mr. Zuckerberg has remolded Meta as he has made the shift. Gone is the CrowdTangle transparency tool, which allowed researchers, academics and journalists to monitor conspiracy theories and misinformation on Facebook. The company’s election integrity team, once trumpeted as a group of experts focused solely on issues around the vote, has been folded into a general integrity team.
Instead, Mr. Zuckerberg has promoted technology efforts at Meta, including its investments in the immersive world of the so-called metaverse and its focus on artificial intelligence.
Mr. Zuckerberg’s change has been visible on his social media. Photos of him uncomfortably clad in a suit and tie and testifying before Congress have been replaced by videos of him with longer hair and in gold chains, competing in extreme sports and sometimes hunting for his own food. Long, heavily lawyered Facebook posts about Meta’s commitment to democracy no longer appear. Instead, he has posted quips on Threads responding to celebrity athletes and videos showing the company’s newest A.I. initiatives.
“This shows how Mark Zuckerberg is feeling that society is more accepting of those libertarian and right-leaning viewpoints that he’s always had,” said Katie Harbath, chief executive of Anchor Change, a tech consulting firm, who previously worked at Facebook. “This is an evolved return to his political origins.”
Mr. Zuckerberg has long been a pragmatist who has gone where the political winds have blown. He has flip-flopped on how much political content should be shown to Facebook and Instagram users, previously saying social networks should be about fun, relatable content from family and friends but then on Tuesday saying Meta would show more personalized political content.
Mr. Zuckerberg has told executives close to him that he is comfortable with the new direction of his company. He sees his most recent steps as a return to his original thinking on free speech and free expression, with Meta limiting its monitoring and controlling of content, said two Meta executives who spoke with Mr. Zuckerberg in the last week.
Mr. Zuckerberg was never comfortable with the involvement of outside fact-checkers, academics or researchers in his company, one of the executives said. He now sees many of the steps taken after the 2016 election as a mistake, the two executives said.
“Fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a video on Tuesday about the end of the fact-checking program, echoing statements made by top Republicans over the years.
Meta declined to comment.
Those who have known Mr. Zuckerberg for decades describe him as a natural libertarian, who enjoyed reading books extolling free expression and the free market system after he dropped out of Harvard to start Facebook in 2004. As his company grew, so did pressure to become more responsive to complaints from world leaders and civil society groups that he was not doing enough to moderate content on his platform.
Crises including a genocide in Myanmar, in which Facebook was blamed for allowing hate speech to spread against the Muslim Rohingya people, forced Mr. Zuckerberg to expand moderation teams and define rules around speech on his social networks.
He was coached by people close to him, including Meta’s former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, to become more involved in politics. After the 2016 election, Mr. Zuckerberg embarked on a public campaign to clear his name and redeem his company. He held regular meetings with civic leaders and invited politicians to visit his company’s headquarters, rolled out transparency tools such as CrowdTangle and brought on fact-checkers.
In 2017, he announced that he was conducting a “listening tour” across the United States to “get a broader perspective” on how Americans used Facebook. The campaign-like photo opportunities with farmers and autoworkers led to speculation that he was running for political office.
Despite his efforts, Mr. Zuckerberg continued to be blamed for the misinformation and falsehoods that spread on Facebook and Instagram.
In October 2019, Mr. Zuckerberg began to push back. In an address at Georgetown University, he said Facebook had been founded to give people a voice.
“I’m here today because I believe we must continue to stand for free expression,” he said.
In 2021, when the Jan. 6 riot broke out at the U.S. Capitol after the presidential election, Meta was again held responsible for hosting speech that fomented the violence. Two weeks later, Mr. Zuckerberg told investors that the company was “considering steps” to reduce political content across Facebook.
His evolution since then has been steady. Executives who pushed Mr. Zuckerberg to involve himself directly in politics, including Ms. Sandberg, have left the company. Those closest to him now cheer his focus on his own interests, which include extreme sports and rapping for his wife, as well as promoting his company’s A.I. initiatives.
In a podcast interview in San Francisco that Mr. Zuckerberg recorded live in front of an audience of 6,000 in September, he spoke for nearly 90 minutes about his love of technology. He said he should have rejected accusations that his company was responsible for societal ills.
“I think that the political miscalculation was a 20-year mistake,” he said. He added that it could take another decade for him to move his company’s brand back to where he wanted it.
“We’ll get through it, and we’ll come out stronger,” Mr. Zuckerberg said.
Business
Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you
Facebook parent company Meta Platforms said Tuesday that it’s ending a third-party fact-checking program in the United States, a controversial move that will change how the social media giant combats misinformation.
Instead, Meta said it would lean on its users to write “community notes” on potentially misleading posts. Meta’s move toward crowd-sourcing its content moderation mirrors an approach taken by X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
The decision by Meta sparked criticism from fact-checkers and advocacy groups, some of whom accused Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg of trying to cozy up to President-elect Donald Trump. Trump has often lashed out at Facebook and other social media sites for what he has said are their biases against him and right-leaning points of view.
Zuckerberg, through Meta, is among a group of tech billionaires and companies who donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. This month, Meta also named Joel Kaplan, a prominent Republican lobbyist, as the new head of global policy. And Dana White, the chief executive of Ultimate Fighting Championship and a friend of Trump’s, is joining Meta’s board.
Content moderation on social media sites has become a political lightning rod with Republicans accusing Facebook and others of censoring conservative speech. Democrats, on the other hand, say these platforms aren’t doing enough to combat political misinformation and other harmful content.
Each day, more than 3 billion people use one of Meta’s services, which includes Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Here’s what you need to know about the decision:
How did Meta’s previous fact-checking program work?
Launched in 2016, Meta’s program included fact-checkers certified by the International Fact-Checking Network to identify and review potentially false information online. The Poynter Institute owns IFCN.
More than 90 organizations participate in Meta’s fact-checking program including Reuters, USA Today and PolitiFact. Through the service, publishers have helped fact-check content in more than 60 languages worldwide about a variety of topics including COVID-19, elections and climate change.
“We don’t think a private company like Meta should be deciding what’s true or false, which is exactly why we have a global network of fact-checking partners who independently review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp,” Meta said in a post about the program.
If a fact-checker rated a post as false, Meta notified the user and added a warning label with a link to an article debunking its claims. Meta also limited the visibility of the post on its site.
What is Meta changing?
Under the new program, Facebook, Threads and Instagram users will be able to sign up to write “community notes” under posts that are potentially misleading or false. Users from a diverse range of perspectives would then reach an agreement on whether content is false, Kaplan said in a blog post.
He pointed to how X handles community notes as a guide to how Meta would handle questionable content. At X, users who sign up to be able to add notes about the accuracy of a post can also rate whether other notes were helpful or unhelpful. X evaluates how users have rated notes in the past to determine whether they represent diverse perspectives.
“If people who typically disagree in their ratings agree that a given note is helpful, it’s probably a good indicator the note is helpful to people from different points of view,” X’s community notes guide said.
Meta said it’s also lifting restrictions around content about certain hot-button political topics including gender identity and immigration — a decision that LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD said would make it easier to target LGBTQ+ people, women, immigrants and other marginalized groups for harassment and abuse online.
Separate from its fact-checking program, Meta employs content moderators who review posts for violations of the company’s rules against hateful conduct, child exploitation and other offenses. Zuckerberg said the company would move the team that conducts “U.S. based content review” from California to Texas.
Why is Meta making this change?
It depends on whom you ask.
Zuckerberg and Kaplan said they’re trying to promote free expression while reducing the number of mistakes by moderators that result in users getting their content demoted or removed, or users being locked out of their accounts.
“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech,” Zuckerberg said in an Instagram video announcing the changes. “So we’re gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms.”
Under its old system, Meta pulled down millions of pieces of content every day in December, and it now estimates that 2 out of 10 of these actions might have been errors, Kaplan said in a blog post.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that the platform has to combat harmful content such as terrorism and child exploitation, but also accused governments and media outlets of pushing to censor more content because of motivations he described as “clearly political.”
Moving the content moderation teams to Texas, he said, will help build trust that their workers aren’t politically biased.
Advocacy groups, though, say tech billionaires like Zuckerberg are just forging more alliances with the Trump administration, which has the power to enact policies that could hinder their business growth.
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights at Free Press, said in a statement that content moderation “has never been a tool to repress free speech.”
“Meta’s new promise to scale back fact checking isn’t surprising — Zuckerberg is one of many billionaires who are cozying up to dangerous demagogues like Trump and pushing initiatives that favor their bottom lines at the expense of everything and everyone else,” she said in a statement.
Trump said in a news conference Tuesday that he thought Zuckerberg was “probably” responding to threats the president-elect had made to him in the past.
Trump has accused social media platforms such as Facebook, which temporarily suspended his accounts because of safety concerns after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, of censoring him. He has previously said he wants to change Section 230, a law that shields platforms from liability for user-generated content, so platforms only qualify for immunity if the companies “meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness and nondiscrimination.”
How have fact-checkers responded to the move?
Fact-checkers say that Meta’s move will make it harder for social media users to distinguish fact from fiction.
“This decision will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family,” said Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network.
She pushed back against allegations that fact-checkers have been politically biased, pointing out that they don’t remove or censor posts and they abide by a nonpartisan code of principles.
“It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters,” she said. “Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”
Times reporter Faith Pinho contributed to this report.
Business
Meta Drops Rules Protecting LGBTQ Community as Part of Content Moderation Overhaul
For years, social media companies made it a top priority to combat hate speech. But in recent months, they have waffled over how to tackle hateful online commentary, particularly when it is directed at L.G.B.T.Q. communities.
Meta on Tuesday said it would drop some of its rules protecting L.G.B.T.Q. people. The changes included allowing users to share “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”
The social media company, which owns Facebook and Instagram, will “get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse,” Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, said in a video.
The change comes amid broad political debate over transgender rights. At least 26 states have restricted gender-affirming care for minors, according to a tally by The New York Times. Tech companies have also faced years of criticism from conservatives, accusing the platforms of promoting liberal voices and stifling dissent.
The changes to Meta’s content policy follow similar ones at X, which recently rolled back rules against hate speech targeting transgender people and made the use of “cisgender” — a word used to describe people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth — a slur.
Meta will refocus its content moderation efforts on “illegal and high-severity violations,” its new global policy chief, Joel Kaplan, said in a blog post.
“It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Mr. Kaplan added.
Cecilia Kang contributed reporting.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports7 days ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics5 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics5 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics4 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health3 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades