Tech’s Different Approaches to 2024

Also a look at some of Zuckerberg's key political moments over the years

If things go according to plan, I’ll be sitting in a duck blind in Canada while you read this. I’m curious to see what my dad and his friends think about the election, and I’ll report back.

With seven weeks until Election Day, I wanted to check in on the various tech companies’ approaches to this election. Instead of a typical report card, I want to examine each company's strengths and challenges. After that, I share a few thoughts about Mark Zuckerberg’s comments last week about some of his political miscalculations over the years.

I could write an in-depth post on each company, so forgive me; this is pretty high-level. A few overarching themes about tech this election that are important to note:

1. No single company will have an outsized impact on the election. Our information environment is too fragmented, and it is a mistake to think that X, Facebook, TikTok, or any platform alone is swaying anything.

2. Every company and platform is different. Everyone takes a different approach to election integrity work. This makes it hard to compare apples to apples.

3. People expect and have accepted seeing fake content.  Weber Shandwick found this in their excellent survey of TikTok users and creators. I think this extends to all online platforms. People know this type of content will likely be served to them and are taking steps to understand what is or isn’t true.

4. There is less transparency. Meta shut down Crowdtangle. Elon charges crazy fees for access to the X API. Other platforms don’t provide any transparency for organic or paid content, making it harder to track how information is spreading.

5. Most companies are prepared. I've listed below which ones I think are prepared or less prepared, but overall, most are doing all they can for what will happen between now and Inauguration Day. This is different than you agreeing with their choices for how they will handle things or if they are ready for the emotional toll of the next few months.

Here’s my evaluation of the platforms and where they are this election. These are not in alphabetical order but roughly by the number of users in the United States.

Zuck’s political evolution

I’ve gotten a lot of questions about Mark’s comments last week where he said at a live taping of the Acquired podcast, “One of the things that I look back on and regret is, I think we accepted other people's view of some of the things that they were asserting that we were doing wrong, or were responsible for, that I don't actually think we were.” 

Some are dubbing it his no-apologies tour, as he started the conversation by saying he would probably have to come back and apologize for what he was about to say.

To put these comments in context, I thought it would be helpful to examine all the different ways Mark has been involved in politics over the years.

Like many platform CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg leaned into politics when things were favorable during the Obama era. It wasn’t just seen as cool; being the go-to place for political conversation was essential for relevance.

After 2016, the narrative shifted to responsibility, but that came with scandal after scandal over the next five years. Despite pouring in resources, Zuckerberg felt he wasn’t getting credit for his efforts. Now, he’s trying to distance himself—and Facebook—from politics altogether.

What’s the common thread here? Zuckerberg was either caught up in or reacting to the moment, doing what he thought would make people like him or stop criticizing him. We’ve watched him evolve from a 20-year-old to a 40-year-old CEO, still trying to define himself as a leader. Unlike most of his fellow platform founders who have moved on, he’s stayed in the CEO role, but now he’s on an island—haunted by hindsight, as Charlie Warzel put it. You can trace this in his responses to the crises that have unfolded.

Warzel’s right: this is a game Zuckerberg can’t win. These recent comments may signal that realization—but I’m not convinced.

There was a time when I thought I knew Zuckerberg’s values, and I respected him for not caving to pressure from either side. He’d host an all-hands meeting or write a manifesto, and the company would rally around his vision—until a new one emerged. But now, after so many pivots, we’ve lost the plot. I wish he’d go back to basics and remind us all of his core values—the things Facebook should do simply because they’re the right things to do. Then he should act on them.

Instead, it feels like he’s complaining—wanting to have an impact without the messiness that comes with it. Sure, he’s been unfairly blamed for some things, but maybe instead of seeking approval, he should just put his head down and get to work.

This is another example of Zuckerberg’s tendency to swing between extremes. He prefers clear-cut problems over the ambiguity that politics brings, and he craves immediate results. Ultimately, he wants to be left alone to build things, and instead, he and the company have to spend time reacting to whatever crisis is at hand. Unfortunately, this is what comes with having an impactful platform.

But this isn’t just a Mark Zuckerberg problem—it’s an issue across platforms. Companies that publicly engage get pulled into crisis after crisis, so some, like Google and Apple, choose not to engage at all. It’s the safest option—but is it the best one?

We all get swept up in these crises, reacting to every statement and forgetting that platforms like Meta still invest heavily in trust, safety, and protecting election integrity, even if they don’t always publicize it.

While I’m frustrated with Zuckerberg’s recent decisions, I don’t think he’s shirking responsibility—he’s just saying Meta shouldn’t be the only one under scrutiny. That’s fair, but complaining about being treated unfairly won’t win anyone over. In this election cycle, Meta won’t be remembered for its efforts—they’ll be remembered for trying to run from politics but failing to hide.

Please support the curation and analysis I’m doing with this newsletter. As a paid subscriber, you make it possible for me to bring you in-depth analyses of the most pressing issues in tech and politics.