Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, advocated for his company’s contentious policy adjustments while rallying the workforce for what he claims will be a “significant year” for the social media powerhouse.
“I want to clarify that after the past few years, we’ve now got a chance to form a constructive partnership with the U.S. government,” Zuckerberg expressed during one of the firm’s well-known all-hands gatherings on Thursday. “We plan to seize that opportunity.”
The closed-door meeting included over 70,000 team members, though recordings of Zuckerberg’s address were swiftly leaked to various media outlets, such as Business Insider, The New York Times, and The Verge. The Daily Beast did not receive a response from Meta regarding a request for comments.
“I believe this is the right approach since there are multiple domains, even where we might not fully concur, where we share mutual interests that will help us serve our community more effectively and together further our nation’s goals,” Zuckerberg remarked to his employees on Thursday.
His comments were similar to what he stated the previous day during the company’s quarterly earnings call.
“This year is also poised to redefine our engagement with governments,” the Meta CEO shared with investors. “We now have a U.S. administration that is proud of our top companies, focuses on the success of American technology, and will protect our values and interests internationally, leading me to feel hopeful about the advancements and innovation this can bring.”
Since Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election in November, Meta has experienced dramatic policy transformations—altering its hateful conduct policy, discontinuing its fact-checking program, and appointing UFC CEO and longtime Trump associate Dana White to its board. Additionally, Meta has disbanded its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives—a decision that Zuckerberg justified to employees on Thursday.
The 40-year-old tech mogul stated that the company has a “strong history” regarding diversity and still considers it a “strength.” However, he mentioned that changes are necessary to adapt to a “rapidly evolving policy and regulatory environment that increasingly views any strategy favoring one group over others as potentially unlawful.”
