Meta’s Joel Kaplan On The New Rules Regime

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Meta’s head of Global Policy, Joel Kaplan, joined me this AM to discuss the new content moderation regime at the company unveiled by Mark Zuckerberg Tuesday:

Audio:

01-08hhs-kaplan

Transcript:

HH: I begin this hour with Joel Kaplan, head of global affairs for Meta. Good morning, Joel. Welcome on the day after Mark Zuckerberg’s big announcement. The news may completely focus on the tragedy out here. I would guess you’ve got a lot of Meta employees in Los Angeles, don’t you?

JK: Yeah, well first of all, good morning, Hugh. Thanks for having me. Yeah, terrible to hear, to wake up to the news and hear about all these fires in such a beautiful area. We do have some Meta employees in an office in Los Angeles. It’s, you know, we’re headquartered a little further north. But yeah, our hearts really go out to everybody who’s dealing with these fires.

HH: I will keep giving updates throughout the hour, but now, I want to turn to the aftermath of Mark Zuckerberg’s policy. I played it on the air yesterday, and I have collected reactions to talk with you about. But first, how do you think the public is receiving the change of course that Mark Zuckerberg laid out in the video yesterday?

JK: Yeah, thanks, Hugh. I’m glad you all had a chance to listen and talk about them yesterday. I think the reaction has been really, really great. And I think people are ready for a return to values of free expression on our platforms that Mark laid out yesterday, that we had a chance to talk about. You know, things like eliminating the third-party fact-checking program, which has just been too politically biased, changing our rules to allow for greater space for political debate about issues like immigration or gender or trans issues, and changing our enforcement, how we actually enforce those rules to really dramatically cut down on the stakes, which make up the lion’s share of the censorship that people experience on our platforms. So all of those things are really important for getting back to those roots and free expression, and you know, the reaction I’ve gotten has been really positive.

HH: Now Joel, very few people know you were deputy assistant to the president under George W. Bush. So you’ve been in the hurricane. You know what it’s like when too many things are happening. Meta is sort of like a private sector White House. Everything happens to Meta, because it’s around the world. It’s involved in everything. How has this played in countries not named the United States of America?

JK: Yeah, look, we do operate in almost every country around the world, and not all those countries have, in fact, really, none of those countries have the 1st Amendment like the United States, and have that deep-rooted commitment as a country to freedom of expression. And you know, we have to operate in all those countries. One of the challenges we’ve had over the last few years is that when you have a U.S. administration that puts pressure on companies like ours to moderate more content, censor more speech, it really invites even greater regulation and censorship in other countries. So one of the things we’re looking forward to is working with President Trump and his administration to push back on some of the countries that have taken a much more aggressive approach through regulation to censorship online. So you know, we’ll see how it all lands in different places around the world, but we’re excited that this is a real opportunity for us to push forward on free expression everywhere around the world.

HH: I’d like to give you two reactions that I’ve spent the day collecting them, Joel Kaplan. One from Christine Rosen at AEI, who I think is really one of the smartest people in American politics said on their podcast yesterday, and they spent most of their hour on the Commentary podcast talking about Meta, politics is just an obstacle to power for Zuckerberg. If ultra-progressives come along in 2028, Meta will switch again. That’s from a very serious intellectual on the right. On the left, Brian Stelter, Meta’s framing in its PR blog post is more speech and fewer mistakes. An alternative title could be more lies and more confusion. In between are the too little, too late people. I mean, how do you deal with a spectrum of responses like that?

JK: Well, our job is to just focus on what we think is the right thing to do for the people who use our platform in the United States and around the world. And we think the right thing to do is to give them a platform and a space to express themselves and share what’s important to them. And some people are going to like that, and some people aren’t. But the important thing is we really have an opportunity now to get back to those roots. You know, when Mark Zuckerberg founded this company, you don’t found a company like this one that has this kind of mission if you don’t really believe in voice, giving people a voice. So I think that is the true north for this company, and this is just a great opportunity for us to seize the moment and return to those founding principles for Mark and for the company.

HH: Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech in Georgetown in 2019. Then, COVID came along and kind of upended anything. And he’s been a guest on this program, and I’ve been a guest in his home. So I think he’s trying his best to figure out how to work a world that wants free expression and in some places is punished for it. But I think it was a misstep. This is Hugh Hewitt, nobody else, just a radio talk show host, to do the oversight board. Even though you got Judge McConnell, who may be the greatest brain in America to be its chair, is that on the table? Or is that a sunk cost that you’re stuck with?

JK: Well, look, I’m glad you mentioned Judge McConnell, because I think that’s indicative of what the purpose of the oversight board was, which was actually to promote freedom of expression in places around the world where it’s a lot harder to defend, and where they’re less likely to trust a U.S.-based company to make those decisions. And Judge McConnell was chosen because of his long-standing commitment and expertise, academic and judicial expertise, on freedom of expression. So that really is the purpose of the oversight board. I know that that sometimes can be construed otherwise by critics, but that’s what Mark’s intent was with the oversight board. And in lots of instances around the world, they have been able to defend freedom of expression from what would otherwise be pretty aggressive censorship from governments.

HH: Now Andrew McCarthy was on with me just before this, and we were talking about the oversight board. Three-quarters of its members do not come from the United States. Is there any benefit to the company of having an oversight board that reflects, if I can put it this way, a European consensus on speech, which is much more heavy-handed than the American genome, which is stay away unless it’s child porn or an imminent call to imminent violence, the Brandenberg test? Any rethinking of that, Joel?

JK: That’s, look, that’s a very good question about how do you have a global, you know, our services are used, 95% of the people who use our services are outside the United States.

HH: Wow.

JK: And so this board together, yeah, so you know, you don’t usually think of that way, but when you have 4 billion people monthly using the platforms, by definition, they’ve got to be mostly outside the United States. So that’s why we have a global board. But I certainly hear and understand the criticism of, like, well, does that make sense when you’re talking about content that’s being posted and seen by people in the United States, primarily? And I think that’s an important question, and one that I know we’ll look at. And the board and the trustees of the board, I think, will probably take a look at that as well.

HH: A last question. I think the FTC has been run by ideologues for the last four years, and Chairman Khan going away will be a good thing for everyone. But what happens with Facebook and Meta and all the other social media companies under a Trump regime that will be different than under the Biden regime?

JK; Well, I think there’s great reason for all of the tech companies and for businesses generally to be very optimistic that we’re going to come out from under this really heavy-handed regime that we’ve had over the last four years of just regulation across the board, which has been, I think a real hinderance to growth. And the thing that the new administration, and President Trump in particular are really focuses on is just American competitiveness and leadership. And that’s incredibly important for our company and our tech sector. And on things like AI, having somebody like David Sacks put in to oversee AI policy, I think that’s going to be an incredible boost to innovation and technological leadership and the competitive edge that’s made America the envy of the world for so many years.

HH: If I can hold onto you for one more minute, Joel, I have one question about artificial intelligence that I’ll do during the break and play afterwards.

— – – — –

HH: Welcome back. I have one more question for Joel Kaplan, who is the chief of global affairs for Meta. Joel, guests on this show include Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel and David Sacks, and everyone who is concerned about artificial intelligence. And I know the regulatory scheme has got to be developed. Two questions – where do you want that regulatory scheme to be developed – at the FTC and Congress or in the marketplace? And the second, where do you want the small modular nuclear power reactors to go, because you can’t get to AI nirvana unless you guys have power?

JK: Yeah, those are two great questions that go right to the heart of our future ability to lead as a country on AI. On regulation, we really think you’ve got to be careful at these early stages of regulating and preventing the kind of innovation that’s really going to revolutionize, you know, most of the economy. And I think that that, that David Sacks and the administration are going to be very thoughtful about that, making sure that the thing that we probably need to regulate is any kind of dangerous uses of AI, not regulate the technology right at the heart of it, right? So you want to make sure that the innovations can still happen. And as with any technology, there will be people who try to misuse it, and you want to regulate it at that level. So that’s where we think we should go on regulation. On small nuclear reactors, modular reactors, you’re absolutely right. The advances in AI require a tremendous amount of compute power, which requires a tremendous amount of energy. And we just haven’t been building enough power plants in this country. And I think President Trump and his administration are really focused on making it much easier to invest and build power of all kinds in this country. And I think in the coming years, nuclear has to be a huge part of that. And the technological advances we’re starting to see in small modular reactors hopefully can play an important role in the future of AI.

HH: Joel Kaplan, thank you, because if the American century is going to be the American millennium, we need Meta, and we need power, and we need artificial intelligence to be led by the United States. Thank you for your time, Joel Kaplan. Congratulations on the new job, though I don’t envy you your PR assignment today of getting out there and arguing with the world about whether it’s good or bad. Thank you, Joel, for starting the day with me.

JK: Thanks, Hugh. Great to be with you.

End of interview.

The post Meta’s Joel Kaplan On The New Rules Regime appeared first on The Hugh Hewitt Show.