Meta seems to be reaching out to influential critics in the tech sphere, presumably to win favor with Zuckerberg and sidestep a significant antitrust trial looming on the horizon.
The Federal Trade Commission has accused Zuckerberg of employing a “buy or bury” tactic to maintain its monopoly status, which led to Meta selling off Instagram and WhatsApp during a pivotal federal court dispute. Last month, Zuckerberg was the first to take the stand in this high-profile case.
Reportedly, in early April—just as the trial was set to begin—Meta officials had discussions with the Media Research Center, a well-known right-leaning entity recognized for its critiques on tech censorship and political bias, as various sources disclosed.
In a conversation with MRC’s executive Schneider, Meta representatives talked about the upcoming FTC trials and hinted at the elimination of a recent fact-checking initiative related to Zuckerberg.
When contacted, Schneider did confirm that this conversation took place. He interpreted Meta’s approach as a request for him to advocate for the company in some capacity.
“Right before this examination, which could significantly impact Meta, [the company official] appeared to be making a last-ditch effort to see if any of the major critics might offer cover,” Schneider stated.
However, Schneider was careful to clarify that while he wanted to take action, it wasn’t as straightforward as it seemed. “It’s not an accurate portrayal,” he mentioned, adding that he had no obligation to acquiesce to their suggestions.
During this call, Meta officials proposed that the FTC might achieve a more favorable transaction “through prior arrangements, not just during the trial,” according to Schneider.
Meta opted not to provide any comments on this situation.
This conversation reflects ongoing lobbying efforts by Meta to engage key Republican figures, including Zuckerberg himself and former President Trump.
A source in D.C. pointed out, “The timing from Meta indicates a level of desperation to avoid trial. The pressure is on them. They know they need to be careful about how they are perceived.”
The MRC has produced several reports analyzing alleged censorship trends involving companies like Google and Meta. They claim, “Since 2008, Facebook has intervened in U.S. elections 39 times.”
In a December report, MRC noted that Meta, Google, and Amazon’s actions against Trump last year represented significant censorship incidents.
According to Schneider, “We were trying to navigate this situation, but ultimately didn’t fall for their traps. I acknowledge the official’s outreach, but it’s simply a minimal improvement in the grand scheme.”
He added that Meta should be held accountable for their actions against media platforms and take steps to ensure protections against economic harm and uphold free speech principles.
Late last month, MRC published a piece discussing how Meta’s adjustments to its fact-checking strategy led to a noticeable increase in traffic but questioned if these changes were lasting or merely politically motivated.
Meta also participated in the White House Easter Egg Roll recently, deploying personnel with ties to the GOP to further its interests.
Last week, conservative activist Robbie Starbuck filed a defamation lawsuit against Meta for inaccurately linking him to the January 6 Capitol incident, after which Meta’s Kaplan publicly apologized for the chatbot’s “unacceptable” response.
A source remarked, “Meta is flailing in D.C., trying to plant op-eds in conservative media. They seem to misunderstand that these Republican officials have little concern for their dilemmas.”
Zuckerberg has visited the White House multiple times recently, even purchasing a $23 million property in D.C. to solidify his connections.
Just last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Zuckerberg had a face-to-face meeting with FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson to discuss potential resolutions for the case. Initially, he offered a mere $450 million—a fraction of the $30 billion the FTC was demanding.
He later raised the offer to $1 billion, but Ferguson reportedly maintained that he wouldn’t agree to a settlement requiring less than $18 billion while also preventing future anti-competitive behavior by Meta.
