Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Why Don’t People Understand the Dangers of Socialism?

December 29, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) popularized socialism with his presidential campaign. Socialism is no longer seen as a risk by many young voters. What happened? Why don’t people understand the dangers of socialism when they can see how North Korea and Venezuela have used socialist structures to starve their own people?

Doc talked about free markets and capitalism vs. socialism on today’s show, wondering why younger voters don’t seem to understand that socialism is a threat to freedom.

“Capitalism has become a bad word,” Doc said. “From my earliest memories, I learned the truth about socialism. Socialism is an unsustainable political structure and social structure that will lead to one of several evil, oppressive governments: fascism, communism.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck today. I'll be with you tomorrow as well, if you want to follow me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonShow. And I'll engage with you as well. We'll find out what you learned throughout the program, with the #whatIlearnedtoday. We'll get to some calls coming up, 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

Over the past few years, on our morning broadcast on TheBlaze Radio Network, and you can find out more about me at TheBlazeRadio.com. It's TheBlazeRadio.com.

We have focused on free markets and freedom. The idea that these things are really good. And I know you're like, well, of course, they're good.

But the problem is, capitalism has become a bad word. Socialism has become, as you know, just this norm, accepted, wonderful, starry-eyed way to go. Just bizarre that we've gotten to that.

From my earliest memories, I learned the truth about socialism. Socialism is an unsustainable political structure or social structure that will lead to one of several evil, oppressive governments.

Fascism, communism, theocracies. Any of these things start with the idea of socialism. Somebody can orchestrate the perfect society by dictating how you live, how much you must give, redistributing what everybody has. It's unsustainable and leads to some sort of totalitarianism. It gets the support of the masses from the concept of, well, you don't have enough. So we'll go get it from those people. And the government will tell them how much they can have, and you get to have some of theirs. It all starts off with the noblest of causes and always ends the same way. One bad society.

We're seeing a living example of that throughout 2017. In Venezuela. An absolute disaster.

That's what always ends up happening. The countries that have been totalitarian regimes that have had increased successes over the last few years, decades, are countries who have gone away from that. Countries like China, for example. And taken up more capitalist policies.

So we support the idea of free markets. And not just bitching about the little snowflakes who support socialism in their safe spaces on college campuses and why socialism is so wonderful. "Bernie 2020." But the good news and positive ideas. And positive outcomes from capitalism and free markets and letting people decide for themselves how to live.

And we're going to do even more of that in 2018. We offer free commercials to people on the air. You got a business? Email me. Believe America at TheBlaze.com. We spotlight businesses, just to say, hey, here's your jump-start because marketing is difficult and expensive. And we're going to do even more of that in 2018. We got some huge ideas coming up that are going to help you, even if it's not a full business.

You just have a little side stream of income. Ideas. Practical things that are going to help. Helping you and helping people understand the positive of free markets is where we're going 2018. So please join us on our program. Again, building America at TheBlaze.com if you want to be spotlighted on our show.

All right. We'll get to some calls before we move on. We have some other things happening in the world today.

Let's go to Line 44. Jerry in Wisconsin, you are on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, Doc, you're probably right. There's probably sometimes where the media has been unfair to Donald Trump. I'm not going to completely deny that. But considering what Donald Trump has said about the media, he has called the media -- he has stated that it's disgusting, that the American person press, that the media has the right to report what they want.

He has -- he's literally a fascist. You're a Libertarian. He's a fascist. He's an authoritarian. He has contempt for the First Amendment. His quotes are nothing different than what Mussolini might say. He has disdain for our idea, for the press to report. The only media he likes is media that parrots what he says and that praises him like Fox News. This is a man who just shouldn't be president. He has contempt for the first president and what our Founding Fathers gave us.

DOC: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Shouldn't be president. What do you mean by that?

CALLER: Because he has contempt for the Constitution. He has contempt for what the right of free press, as I stated -- he said it was disgusting. Said the media has the media to report what they do --

DOC: Let me ask you something. Hang on one second. Hang on one second, Jerry. I'll let you talk some more.

I just want to explore one thing. Is Donald Trump over the age of 35?

CALLER: Yeah.

DOC: Is he a natural-born citizen?

CALLER: I didn't say that he's ineligible. I said he shouldn't be.

DOC: Well, he became president. Based on --

CALLER: Mussolini became the leader of Italy. Should Mussolini -- tell me, should Mussolini become the leader of Italy? Do you think it was a great thing that Mussolini became the leader of Italy? Because I don't.

DOC: No, no, no, you're conflating it. People supported him, and people have a difference of opinion.

Now, you can say you don't support his ideas. But I hate this idea of shouldn't be and not my president and all of that nonsense.

CALLER: I didn't say not my president. I just said he shouldn't be. He shouldn't be. Like Republicans said the same thing about Obama. When Obama was president for eight years, they said the exact same thing. I'm saying the same thing about Trump. He shouldn't be.

DOC: You mean you don't want him to be president? You wish he was not president?

CALLER: No. Mentally, he's deranged. He's a narcissist. He's emotionally immature. He's completely unqualified. He's president, but he's a horrible president. That's the point.

DOC: Okay. Now, you're basing that on you having different values than him? Is that why you're saying he's a horrible president?

CALLER: I've listened to him for the last 20 years.

DOC: Give me a couple of specifics of him, and you say he's a horrible president.

CALLER: Well, okay. The war on the media -- the war on freedom on the press.

DOC: Hold on one second. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

CALLER: Praising Nazis.

DOC: We're taking this one at a time. This is a conversation. One at a time.

CALLER: Okay.

DOC: So the war on the press. Do you mean the war on the press where he's challenged people like Jim Acosta and said that's fake news? Is that what you mean by that?

CALLER: That's one. But anyway --

DOC: No. Hold on, Jerry. I want to explore these -- hold on. Hang on. Jerry, hang on. Hang on.

We're going to get to this stuff. It's a conversation, Jerry. Hold on. Hold on. So are you talking about stuff like Jim Acosta, where he has challenged them and said, sit down, you're fake news and stuff? Is that what you're talking?

CALLER: Well, anything they report he calls fake news, even if the reporting is exactly right. Because to Donald Trump, anything that's not in his reality is fake news. He praises news that praises him, like Fox News, which is the propaganda arm of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

DOC: And, Jerry, you really -- really are going to say those things without calling out President Obama for his closed door special meetings with certain members of the media? You're not going to call out MSNBC for being his talking surrogate during his platform -- during his presidency? You're not going to be consistent?

CALLER: Okay. Those -- they did favor President Obama. That's true. Yes.

DOC: No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, Jerry, hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. Hold on a second. Hold it. No, no, no. They did not favor him. They promoted him. They, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC --

CALLER: The liberal media. The liberal media.

DOC: Don't do that. See, this is the reason people can't have discussions, Jerry. This is the reason. I'm admitting Donald Trump of course likes media that's going to favor him. And, yes, Fox News praises him because they are a right-wing media outlet. Of course. But you're not willing to give that due? You're not willing to be consistent? You've lost credibility if you're not willing to point out that the other media outlets rabidly, blindly supported President Obama because they are progressives.

CALLER: Okay. Rabidly, blindly, no.

DOC: Hold on. Hold on. Do you work in the media? Do you work in the media?

CALLER: No.

DOC: Okay. I work in the media. My wife works in the media. She works in television media. And I can tell you overwhelmingly, people in the media are progressive. It's not even close. It's not even, well, it's 60-40. It's like 80-20. 90-10. The number of progressives. It's true. But you don't -- hold on, Jerry. You don't even need to know that though to look at the reporting. I can't believe you would defend this, knowing, just admit it -- listen, is Rush Limbaugh, is Glenn Beck, are they on the right? Yes. I'm not disputing that. Were they critical of Obama because they don't like his policies? Yes, I'm not disputing that. So wouldn't you simply hold people accountable to have credibility so we can have honest discussions? Why do you make me go through this when you know the truth?

CALLER: Okay. Know the truth. One, even MSNBC, they're not as biased as Fox News. Probably -- one of the reasons why so many people in the media are on the left are --

DOC: You lost all credibility -- hold it. When you say -- hold it. We can't argue here. When you say they're not biased, you've lost as credibility. You know that's not the truth.

CALLER: Well, Doc, you still don't answer me. Are you fine with Donald Trump saying the media was disgusting, that they have the right to report what they did? Because to me, that's disdain and contempt for our Founding Fathers.

DOC: No, I have no problem with him saying the media is disgusting.

CALLER: No, it's disgusting they have the right to report and publish. He believes the media shouldn't have the right. He believes the media shouldn't have the right -- in the First Amendment that James Madison wrote down --

DOC: Hold it. Jerry, Jerry, stop with the historical lesson. Trust me, I understand the First Amendment. I understand that.

No, of course, the freedom of the press is solid. It's absolute. Of course, it is. And anybody who says, whether it's Donald Trump or President Obama, is wrong. Do you remember President Obama calling out Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Do you remember --

CALLER: I don't remember him saying --

DOC: Do you remember him calling out Fox News? Do you remember those things?

CALLER: Disgusting. I don't remember him saying it's disgusting that Sean Hannity can report what he wants. You tell me when President Obama said that and I will apologize and take that -- any position. You tell me when President Obama said it was disgusting for the media to do that.

DOC: When he called them out for their biases and not admitting the other, so you're hung up on the word disgusting. Jerry, you know the truth here. I'm not argue that go Fox News is biased. And I'm not arguing that President Trump shouldn't say people don't have a right to report.

Of course, they do. They can report opinion for that matter. I just prefer them to be transparent up front.

But the fact that you and others are not being consistent now because you simply do not like policies of his and you may not like the way he presents himself, you've lost all credibility. You are actually -- Jerry, you are actually the problem.

CALLER: He's a fascist. He's a fascist.

DOC: Stop. Stop. We're not going down that road. I'm talking about your lack of credibility right now. How are we supposed to find common ground and have discussions when you know the truth and you can't just simply admit that?

CALLER: I know the truth as you stating what I should know the truth.

DOC: Jerry, you've exposed yourself.

CALLER: CNN. Somewhat on the left.

DOC: No, no, no, no. No probably. No, Jerry, no. Hold it. Hold it a second. There's no probably with this, Jerry. There's no probably with, yeah, they are. Just admit it.

MSNBC is every bit as progressive as Fox News is conservative. I'm willing to concede. Fox News -- absolutely the same. But on the other side, CNN, absolutely. I'm not trying to say, oh, Fox News isn't. Fox News is right. Of course. I work for TheBlaze.

We're from a right-leaning perspective. Of course, we're admitting it. We will never get beyond this stuff. We will never find solutions. We will never find common grounds that you supposedly want. You want to have discussions. We got to have a conversation on race in America. We can never have any conversations on this stuff.

Because you will not be consistent. Because that is not what a progressive is. It is a cornerstone of progressivism, which you are, to not be consistent.

CALLER: That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

DOC: And there you go. There it is.

Willing to have a conversation, but he's a fascist, whatever, whatever. I'm willing to discuss with you. We can find common ground. But if you're going to start with, those people are worse and it didn't happen here, President Trump should not say, people do not have a right to report. Of course, they do. And the things where he has tweeted, suggested, said things like that, absolutely wrong. The First Amendment is absolute. Period.

He was wrong. Calling the media out, I have no problem with. I have no problem challenging the media and reporting.

Why can't you? Why can't you as president or a senator or a governor? Of course, you can call people out.

I had no problem with President Obama calling media sources out, as long as he was being consistent and willing to admit that he has these little back-door meetings, special, private, hey, can you guys report on this and not that meetings, with people at the White House. You're not being honest. You're not being transparent. As long as you do that and you're consistent, we can move forward. We can find solutions.

But until you do, yeah, it actually gives me a little bit of pleasure when President Trump beats up on the media. Because finally, somebody calls them out, unlike you.

This is Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck.

4 ways Biden is SABOTAGING Trump on his way out of office

ROBERTO SCHMIDT / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden has less than a week left in the White House, but that doesn't mean he's down for the count quite yet.

Next Monday, January 20th, President-elect Trump will be officially sworn into office, marking the beginning of his second term. But after such a bitter and contentious election, the Democrats aren't ready to roll over. Instead, they have been working around the clock to ensure that Trump will face as many obstacles and challenges as possible the minute he is sworn in. These political landmines are designed to sabotage his presidency—at the cost of the well-being of the American people.

Biden's job approval rating currently sits around 38.7 percent, one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, he has nothing to lose from these reckless ploys. Here are four ways Biden and the Left are trying to sabotage Trump:

Pardoning criminals

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

In November, President Biden customarily pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey ... along with his son Hunter and dozens of other controversial criminals, including 37 felons on death row. Hunter's 11-year-long blanket immunity sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents, and we may never know the full extent of the Biden family's crimes and corruption.

Destroying U.S. energy

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden has made several moves that have damaged America's ability to produce its energy independently, including canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. Earlier this month, Biden signed another order that has dire consequences for the energy sector, effectively blocking any new drilling off the U.S. coast indefinitely. This not only further kneecaps the U.S. oil industry during a time when gas and energy prices are on the rise, but moreover, the way the executive order was written means Trump will have a much harder time undoing it. Thanks, Biden.

Escalating overseas wars

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

America's involvement with the ongoing war in Ukraine has been tenuous from the beginning, but under Biden, it has escalated to a Cold War-like proxy war. Neither pleas from Americans in need nor threats from Russia have deterred Biden. He has approved countless aid packages sent to Ukraine, totaling billions of dollars. Recently, Biden has decided to up the ante by supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, despite Putin's warnings that Russia would consider this an act of war. It's almost like Biden wants to start WWIII before handing the reigns over to Trump.

Installing a "shadow cabinet"

For years Glenn has warned of the dangers of the deep state, and its very existence has been denied ... until recently. Shortly after the election Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel made a disturbing speech on the House floor where he proposed the creation of a "Shadow Cabinet" designed to hamper the Trump administration and to step in if Trump were removed from office. This "Shadow Cabinet" would be composed of Democrat counter-picks to Trump presidential cabinet members, and they would scrutinize every act made by the Trump administration and propose alternative actions. This just proves that the deep state will do anything to stop President Trump.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.