Business
You Now Have Permission to Stop Pretending
Why Meta’s decision to abolish DEI might be a turning point
|
|
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, formerly Facebook, made a stunning announcement. He was abolishing the company’s DEI programs and discontinuing its relationship with fact-checking organizations, which he admitted had become a form of “censorship.” The left-wing media immediately attacked the decision, accused him of embracing the MAGA agenda, and predicted a dangerous rise in so-called disinformation.
Zuckerberg’s move was carefully calculated and impeccably timed. The November elections, he said, felt like “a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” DEI initiatives, especially those related to immigration and gender, had become “disconnected from mainstream conversation”—and untenable.
This is no small about-face. Just four years ago, Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding left-wing election programs; his role was widely resented by conservatives. And Meta had been at the forefront of any identity-based or left-wing ideological cause.
Not anymore. As part of the rollout for the announcement, Zuckerberg released a video and appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, which now functions as a confessional for American elites who no longer believe in left-wing orthodoxies. On the podcast, Zuckerberg sounded less like a California progressive than a right-winger, arguing that the culture needed a better balance of “masculine” and “feminine” energies.
Executives at Meta quickly implemented the new policy, issuing pink slips to DEI employees and moving the company’s content-moderation team from California to Texas, in order, in Zuckerberg’s words, to “help alleviate concerns that biased employees are excessively censoring content.”
Zuckerberg was not the first technology executive to make such an announcement, but he is perhaps the most significant. Facebook is one of the largest firms in Silicon Valley and, with Zuckerberg setting the precedent, many smaller companies will likely follow suit.
The most important signal emanating from this decision is not about a particular shift in policy, however, but a general shift in culture. Zuckerberg has never really been an ideologue. He appears more interested in building his company and staying in the good graces of elite society. But like many successful, self-respecting men, he is also independent-minded and has clearly chafed at the cultural constraints DEI placed on his company. So he seized the moment, correctly sensing that the impending inauguration of Donald Trump reduced the risk and increased the payoff of such a change.
Zuckerberg is certainly not a courageous truth-teller. He assented to DEI over the last decade because that was where the elite status signals were pointing. Now, those signals have reversed, like a barometer suddenly dropping, and he is changing course with them and attempting to shift the blame to the outgoing Biden administration, which, he told Rogan, pressured him to implement censorship—a convenient excuse at an even more convenient moment.
But the good news is that, whatever post hoc rationalizations executives might use, DEI and its cultural assumptions suddenly have run into serious resistance. We may be entering a crucial period in which people feel confident enough to express their true beliefs about DEI, which is antithetical to excellence, and stop pretending that they believe in the cultish ideology of “systemic racism” and race-based guilt.
DEI remains deeply embedded in public institutions, of course, but private institutions and corporations have more flexibility and can dispatch with such programs with the stroke of a pen. Zuckerberg has revealed what this might look like at one of the largest companies. Conservatives can commend him for his decision, while remaining wary. “Trust but verify,” as Ronald Reagan used to say, is a good policy all around.
Christopher F. Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Elon Musk announced he will consult with President Donald Trump on a proposal to issue tax refund checks to Americans using savings from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The idea, originally suggested by Azoria CEO James Fishback, would involve distributing a portion of the funds DOGE claims to have saved from government cost-cutting measures. While Musk aims to reduce federal spending by $2 trillion, questions remain about the actual savings achieved by DOGE.
Key Details:
- Musk responded on X that he would “check with the President” regarding the proposed tax refunds.
- The plan suggests using 20% of DOGE’s $2 trillion spending cut goal—roughly $400 billion—to provide up to $5,000 per household.
- Reports indicate that DOGE’s reported savings may be overstated, with Bloomberg and the New York Times pointing to discrepancies in the numbers.
Diving Deeper:
Elon Musk’s latest proposal to return taxpayer dollars through a “DOGE Dividend” has sparked discussion on federal spending and fiscal responsibility. The initiative, first floated by James Fishback, argues that savings uncovered by DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts should be refunded to taxpayers. Fishback compared it to a private sector refund when a company fails to deliver on its promises.
Musk, who leads DOGE’s advisory group, has set an ambitious goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal government’s $6.75 trillion budget. Under Fishback’s model, 20% of those savings—$400 billion—could be distributed among American households, potentially yielding checks of around $5,000 per family.
However, skepticism surrounds DOGE’s actual savings. Bloomberg reported that only $16.6 billion of the $55 billion in savings claimed by DOGE is accounted for on its website. The New York Times revealed a miscalculation in which DOGE erroneously reported an $8 billion saving on a federal contract that was actually $8 million.
Despite legal challenges against DOGE’s authority, a federal judge recently denied an injunction that sought to block the agency’s access to federal databases or its ability to recommend government employee firings.
The concept of direct payments from the federal government has precedent. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration issued stimulus checks to Americans, with Trump’s signature appearing on IRS payments for the first time in history. Whether the current proposal will gain traction under Trump’s leadership remains to be seen.
Musk’s willingness to discuss the idea with President Trump signals that the proposal may be seriously considered, though practical and political hurdles remain.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for borrowing billions more for high-speed rail between Toronto and Quebec City.
“Trudeau is only prime minister for another couple of weeks so he shouldn’t be borrowing billions more for a new taxpayer boondoggle,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Somebody needs to take the credit card away from the lame duck prime minister before he puts Canada further into debt.”
The Trudeau government announced a high-speed rail line between Toronto and Quebec City.
“The co-development phase of the project represents $3.9 billion over six years,” according to the government’s news release. “This is in addition to the $371.8 million that was provided in Budget 2024.”
The government estimated a railway line between Toronto and Quebec City would cost up to $12 billion in 2021.
The federal government ran a $62-billion deficit last year. That’s $20 billion higher than its promised fiscal guardrail.
The Trudeau government doubled the debt in less than a decade. Interest charges on the debt are costing taxpayers $54 billion this year. For context, the government is wasting more money on debt interest charges than it sends to the provinces in health-care transfers.
The government already owns a railway company, VIA Rail. The government gave VIA Rail $1.8 billion over the last five years to cover its operating losses, according to the Crown corporation’s annual report.
“The government is running huge deficits and spending hundreds of millions of dollars bailing out its current train company, the last thing taxpayers need is to pay higher debt interest charges for Trudeau’s new train boondoggle,” Terrazzano said. “The government is broke, Canadians can’t afford higher taxes and Trudeau shouldn’t be borrowing billions more while he’s walking out the door.”
New Documentary “Cooking with Hot Stones” Explores History of Fort Assiniboine, Alberta
Alleged Human Traffickers arrested in Red Deer, Montreal, and Edmonton
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
U.S. Seizes Fentanyl Shipment From Canada In Seattle, As Washington Pressures Ottawa on Crime Networks
USAID funnelled $472 million into Soros-backed media censorship group: report
Carbon tariff proposal carries risks and consequences for Canada
Trump signs executive order to ‘make America healthy again,’ address chronic disease
-
Alberta24 hours agoU.S. tariffs or not, Canada needs to build new oil and gas pipeline space fast
-
Energy1 day agoUnlocking Canada’s energy potential
-
COVID-191 day agoFreedom Convoy leader says Trudeau gov’t has spent $5 million prosecuting her, fellow protester
-
Alberta23 hours agoPremier Smith and Health Mininster LaGrange react to AHS allegations
-
Business2 days agoElon reveals millions of people in Social Security database between the ages of 100-159
-
Crime2 days agoCartel threats against border agents include explosives, drones
-
Business1 day agoDr. Fauci accused of wasting millions in taxpayer dollars on ‘transgender animal experiments’
-
Business1 day ago
Lame duck prime minister shouldn’t announce taxpayer train boondoggle