Mark Zuckerberg is overhauling his Metaverse. The 40-year-old CEO rocked the business world recently, announcing that Meta (parent company of Facebook) would be phasing out its third-party fact-checking feature in favor of an option closer to X’s Community Notes, ending one of the platform’s most criticized features and kiboshing one of the Babylon Bee’s most consistent sources of content. And that wasn’t even the end of Meta’s about-face: the company announced shortly afterward that it would be ending many of its DEI initiatives, including supplier diversity programs, and sunsetting its actual DEI team. Is the biggest social media platform on Earth embracing free speech? (RELATED: Facebook Ends Dubious Fact-Checking. Biden Objects.) Unsurprisingly, the reaction to this turn of events has been highly skeptical from both the right and the left. Zuckerberg “has opened the door to prejudice and bigotry, given a green flag for attacks on the vulnerable, with no checks and balances,” rants former Twitter curator Marc Burrows. On the right, Federalist contributor Jordan Boyd argued that “Mark Zuckerberg is on a mission to give Facebook’s key role in the censorship industrial complex a makeover.” Whatever the median reaction to Facebook’s new era may be, “open arms and believing minds” doesn’t exactly epitomize it.  So, what are we to make of the new and arguably improved Meta? As someone who talks to corporations about their biased policies for a living (including Meta less than a month ago), let’s have a serious tactical discussion about how to approach a company that has, for better or for worse, complied with government demands for censorship in the past and would now like you to believe that it’s a safe harbor for free expression. Can we trust Zuckerberg to keep his word? (RELATED: Meta’s Oversight Board Threatens Women’s Right to Sex-Based Protections) The best answer for this is one of Ronald Reagan’s most popularized maxims: trust, but verify. And trust is a currency that Facebook has, unfortunately, been willing to trade away time after time. The company’s track record of censorship includes major names: academic institutions like Hillsdale College, online creators like Libs of TikTok, and public figures like Franklin Graham — all names that broadly fall within the coalition of Americans who disagree with progressive ideology. It’s hard to overstate the amount of work Mark Zuckerberg has to do to prove his sincerity to skeptical users. Such proof either has to involve actual apologies, or enough years functioning as a truly politically neutral social media platform for people to trust Facebook again. Both are long roads. (RELATED: Zuckerberg Says Facebook Will Be ‘Neutral.’ Too Little, Too Late.) It’s beyond obvious that Facebook’s 180-degree turn is, at least in part, politically motivated. As someone deep in the weeds of ESG/DEI skeptical corporate engagement, the soon-to-be-reality of a second Trump presidency is a major factor in companies from Meta to McDonald’s ending biased corporate policies. But does that make these rollbacks political? (RELATED: The High-Water Mark of Woke Corporate Activism) It depends on what we mean by that. It’s true that Facebook’s ditching of DEI and fact-checking will make the company more palatable to the incoming Republican administration. But it’s also true that that pivot is a massive opportunity for people who actually care about businesses being neutral on politics. We fight for political neutrality not just because it’s the best model to safeguard against brand damage (à la Target & Bud Light), but because it’s the best model to actually do business. If Meta follows through on its promises to protect free expression via its policies, that’s an outcome to be celebrated by anyone who understands the practical pathways to getting politics out of business. That doesn’t mean easing up on corporate scrutiny. It doesn’t mean taking Mark Zuckerberg at his word — actions and verifiably changed policies, not mere words, are the name of the game for businesses intent on actually ditching corporate politics. But Meta’s turn away from DEI and activist-driven speech policing is an opportunity to demonstrate how a robust commitment to free speech is the pathway to success in the America of 2025 and beyond. Let’s hope, for the sake of its shareholders, its employees, and the more than 3 billion people it brings together online, that the company takes that opportunity. READ MORE from Isaac Willour: The Rise and Fall of Candace Owens, Right-Wing Provocateur Harvard’s Stupidly Obvious Affirmative-Action Fix Isaac Willour is an analyst at Bowyer Research, America’s leading pro-fiduciary proxy consulting & corporate engagement firm. A graduate of Grove City College, Isaac is an award-winning journalist, Young Voices contributor, and frequent commentator on ESG, DEI, & the culture war. He can be found on X @IsaacWillour. The post Should We Believe Facebook on Free Speech? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.