Despite Meta Chief Mark Zuckerberg’s various proclamations about the value of free speech and the importance of providing a platform for anybody to share their thoughts and opinions, it seems that Meta does have its limits, which, in some cases at least, extend beyond legal boundaries.
As reported by Axios, Meta has begun removing Facebook and Instagram ads placed by attorneys in the U.S. who were seeking clients that claim to have been harmed by social media when they were under the age of 18.
As per the report: “Axios has identified more than a dozen such ads that were deactivated today, some of which came from large national firms like Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law.”
A growing number of attorneys have posted calls seeking potential plaintiffs in social media harm-related cases across Meta’s apps in the wake of the landmark social media addiction trial in California. The jury in that case ruled that social media platforms can be addictive and can have significant health impacts on users.
That ruling opened up new avenues for potential litigation. Axios said that in order to negate this and stop lawyers from using its platform to seek damages against the business, Meta is using a clause in its terms and conditions relating to “adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Meta” to remove these ads.
This belies Zuckerberg’s avowed passion for free speech. It also shows that Meta has limits on what it will allow, even if it publicly promotes the opposite.
Zuckerberg in particular has made free speech a bigger focus of late, particularly in the wake of the re-election of U.S. President Donald Trump. That said, Zuckerberg has also long held firm to the idea that Meta should minimize interference via moderation and censorship.
In a speech to Georgetown University in 2019, Zuckerberg said he was committed to upholding “as wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible — and not allow the definition of what is considered dangerous to expand beyond what is absolutely necessary.”
In January 2025, when announcing the implementation of Community Notes as an alternative to third-party fact-checking, Zuckerberg reiterated this stance, and said Meta had reached a point where its systems led to too much censorship.
So at least in his public comments, Zuckerberg is wholly against removing content that isn’t illegal, and supporting people’s right to free speech.
Yet, as reported by Engadget, a recently leaked text message exchange with X owner Elon Musk from 2025 showed that Zuckerberg told informed Musk that he had instructed Meta’s teams to be “on alert to take down content doxxing or threatening the people” working on Musk’s DOGE government spending review team.
That could, of course, cross into illegal data sharing, so it may not be as overt as the censorship of ads for plaintiffs against the business. But it does show that Zuckerberg is actively calling for moderation of content based on personal or ideological stances, as opposed to being as free and open as he’s claimed to be.
While few would debate the logic that Meta wouldn’t want to allow ads seeking to litigate against it to be promoted in its apps, this issue highlights the hypocrisy of social platforms when the content in question relates to impacts on their own business or the beliefs of their owners.
This also underlines the impact that tech billionaires can have on public discourse and the flow of information, by shaping content policy as they see fit.
