Meta, the tech giant often at the center of political and cultural debates, is making waves again—this time for policies that seem to align with the values of accountability and free discourse. But not everyone is happy about it. Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor and prominent attorney, has dramatically dropped Meta as a client. His reasoning? A series of moves by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that prioritize free speech over censorship and shift the focus away from divisive diversity initiatives.
Lemley’s decision follows Zuckerberg’s recent announcement that Meta would no longer rely on third-party fact-checkers—a move many conservatives see as a win for free speech. For years, these so-called “fact-checkers” have drawn criticism for their selective enforcement of narratives, often targeting right-leaning voices while ignoring falsehoods from the left. Zuckerberg’s move signals a departure from the heavy-handed moderation that has plagued online platforms.
But that wasn’t all. Zuckerberg also revealed Meta would be scaling back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. DEI programs have been criticized for fostering division and prioritizing identity over merit. This change appears to align with a broader cultural shift toward rewarding talent and hard work rather than bowing to the loudest ideological voices.
Lemley, however, couldn’t stomach these changes. Taking to the left-leaning Bluesky platform, he wrote, “I have fired Meta as a client… These decisions and comments reflect values I cannot support.”
Lemley’s outrage extended to comments Zuckerberg made on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Discussing the state of corporate culture, Zuckerberg lamented how far it has strayed from fostering ambition and strength, remarking that companies have lost touch with “masculine energy.” Lemley dismissed the comment with mockery, posting, “Oh yeah, that’s the problem with tech companies — not enough testosterone,” accompanied by an eyeroll emoji.
Such disdain for values like hard work and resilience underscores the ideological divide that has gripped Silicon Valley.
While Lemley claims his departure stems from a conflict of values, critics argue it’s more about aligning himself with the increasingly radical left. Meta’s recent shifts are likely an attempt to distance itself from the ideological conformity demanded by elite academic and media circles, a move that’s rattling entrenched power players.
Lemley had been part of a legal team defending Meta against a copyright lawsuit brought by several authors, including Sarah Silverman. The authors allege Meta used their works without permission to train its AI models. While Lemley stated he believes Meta is on the “right side” of the case, his departure leaves the company to continue its legal battle without him.
Meta’s recent policy changes could mark a significant turning point in Silicon Valley. Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, the company appears willing to shed the suffocating political correctness that has stifled innovation and free thought in the tech world.
As more companies move toward policies rooted in common sense and fairness, the question arises: will the woke mob continue to exert influence, or are we witnessing the beginning of a cultural reckoning? Whatever the case, Zuckerberg’s willingness to challenge the status quo may well set the stage for a freer, more open internet—one where ideas can thrive without the heavy hand of ideological gatekeepers.
