For years, Mark Zuckerberg tried to keep his social networks away from the partisan fray.

And why not? Meta’s flagship apps—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—were self-contained nation-states with billions of users, fragile domestic politics, skittish advertisers, constantly annoyed influencers, and a sprawling, uneven enforcement system (known as “content moderation”) meant to keep the peace.

Given the headaches associated with running his quasi-governments, Zuckerberg’s ultimate goal was to get too involved actually Governments – those that could use the power of the law to demand that it censor certain voices, call the shots on politically sensitive issues, or threaten to throw meta-leaders in prison for non-compliance.

But that was back then. Now, on the eve of a second Trump term, Mr. Zuckerberg is giving his company a complete MAGA makeover.

In doing so, he also reveals that Meta – a shape-shifting company that has pounced on every major technology trend of the last decade, from crypto to the metaverse to generative AI and wearable computing – has a fundamental hollowness at its core. It’s not entirely certain what it is or where the next phase of growth will come from. But in the meantime, it will adopt whatever values ​​Mr. Zuckerberg deems necessary to survive.

The latest changes began before the election, when Mr. Zuckerberg — whose contributions to election integrity efforts in 2020 led to Mr. Trump threatening him with life in prison — described Mr. Trump’s recovery from an assassination attempt as “crass.” But they have accelerated in recent weeks after Trump and Zuckerberg met at Mar-a-Lago to mend fences.

Last week, Meta’s global policy chief, Nick Clegg – a former British deputy prime minister chosen for his centrist credentials – was replaced by Joel Kaplan, a longtime Republican activist who served for years as Mr. Zuckerberg’s pro-party liaison. Trump is right.

On Monday, Meta announced the appointment of three new board members, including Dana White, the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and a close friend and political ally of Mr. Trump.

And on Tuesday, Mr. Zuckerberg — sporting a $900,000 wristwatch and an air of tense enthusiasm — announced in an Instagram Reel that Meta would be replacing its fact-checking program with an X-style “community notes” feature. The company is also revising its rules to allow for more criticism of certain groups, including immigrants and transgender people, allowing users to see more “citizen content” in their feeds and moving its content review operations from California to Texas, like he said to avoid the appearance of political bias.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s stated reason for these changes — that Meta realized that its old rules had led to too much censorship and that it should return to its roots as a free speech platform — was nonsense. (For starters: What roots? Facebook was inspired by a “Hot or Not” website for Harvard students, not a Cato Institute white paper.)

In reality, Mr. Zuckerberg changed his views on speeches many times, usually in the direction of the prevailing political currents. And the details of the recent changes (a long list of right-wing speech demands) as well as the manner in which they were delivered (Mr. Kaplan went on “Fox & Friends” to announce them) made clear what the real purpose was.

The most popular theory about Mr. Zuckerberg’s motives is that he is just doing what makes political sense: cozying up to the new Trump administration, as many Silicon Valley tycoons have done, in the hope of getting better deals for himself and Meta to do while Mr. Trump is in office.

Another theory — supported by conversations I’ve had with several of Mr. Zuckerberg’s friends and associates in recent months — is that the billionaire’s personal politics have shifted sharply to the right since 2020 and that his approval of Mr. Trump may wane less out of cynical opportunism than out of genuine enthusiasm.

I can neither prove nor disprove this theory. Unlike Elon Musk, Mr. Zuckerberg doesn’t broadcast his unfiltered political opinions dozens of times a day. But I find it plausible. I’ve spent a lot of time studying the right-wing conversion narratives of disaffected liberals, and Mr. Zuckerberg’s latest story arc fits the bill surprisingly well: A wealthy 40-year-old man with a tainted public reputation begins listening to Joe Rogan and develops an interest in him Mixed martial arts and other hypermasculine hobbies, is annoyed by the woke left and angry at the mainstream media, calls himself a bad boy and adopts the label of one “classical liberals,” while tacitly supporting most tenets of MAGA conservatism.

At least Mr. Zuckerberg has clearly studied Mr. Musk’s playbook. In his video this week announcing Meta’s changes, he spoke with dripping contempt about the “old media” – a favorite phrase of Mr. Musk’s – and accused his California-based employees of political bias, as Mr. Musk did when he took over Twitter.

Whatever the reason, these changes represent Meta’s biggest political realignment since 2016, when the company responded to rampant misinformation on Facebook and widespread criticism of its role in Mr. Trump’s election by overhauling its rules and Billions of dollars invested in content moderation.

The list of people hurt by Meta’s new rules could be long: immigrants, transgender people, victims of online bullying and harassment, the targets of future QAnon-style conspiracy theories, and Facebook and Instagram users who want to see reliable information when logging in.

But the most unexpected victim may be Mr. Zuckerberg himself, who has always tried not to be cornered by political pressure and will now (at least for the next four years or until the wind changes again) be judged on his willingness to surrender to the right on speech issues.

He may find that his new allies on the right demand more censorship from him and are less forgiving of his mistakes than the left ever was. (Some right-wing media outlets are already urging Mr. Trump and his allies not to trust Mr. Zuckerberg’s change of heart.) And the benefits he expects from aligning with Mr. Trump may not materialize as fully as he hopes. (A complicating factor: Mr. Musk, the president-elect’s top technology adviser, is not a fan.)

However, Meta’s real problem is that the company still doesn’t know what it is. Is it a provider of outdated (but still profitable) social media apps? An advocate for open source AI development? A developer of next-generation augmented reality hardware? A way for people to connect with their families and friends? A TikTok-style algorithmic feed filled with a mix of professional influencers and AI stuff? A builder of immersive virtual worlds? Something else, stranger?

A political reset could buy Mr. Zuckerberg some time to answer these questions. But for Meta to thrive beyond the Trump years, he will have to do more than just bend the knee.