Lately, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta and Facebook fame has expressed a desire to change course. He says that he’s sorry about all the censorship, and he’s dropping things like DEI from Facebook, and has even expressed more masculine interests, such as in combat sports, and has even been on the Joe Rogan podcast to explain his perspective.

As you might expect, some people were skeptical of the change. It’s the internet, and there are people on it who are running the race to be as vindictive as possible, for whatever e-clout that there is to extract from so doing. Thus, Mark is being accused of just going where the trends are going, just because Donald Trump has won, and not because he’s expressing a sincere change of heart.

In the current zeitgeist of frumpy bitterness, I have a take that could be controversial. I think that Mark Zuckerberg might be being sincere.

Yeah, I get it, it’s trendy and cool to assume the worst if someone’s position can be interpreted in a manner that favors indignation, even on someone else’s behalf. So, my take probably won’t be algorithmically-boosted in the same way as some rage-inducing video. But I think that Mark might actually mean it.

Does that mean that he was principled enough to stand up to the government that was pressuring him to censor certain viewpoints? Apparently not. But it would seem like he was principled enough to consider something wrong, even if he hesitated to act or speak against it for years.

I could point out that Mark didn’t become right-wing during the first Trump presidency, but I know that it’s easy to make the point that the initial Trump administration wasn’t strongly establishment, as the establishment largely resisted or even undermined Trump. I think that the safer position to take is that the mandate implied by Trump’s overwhelming recent victory made it far easier for Zuckerberg, and many others, to finally take a stand.

If you’ve ever been threatened in any way over what’s right, like if your employment was threatened, and you refused to back down, you’re probably more principled than Mark Zuckerberg. But he does seem sincere in the position he is now expressing, so I don’t see any reason to doubt that his redemption is valid.

People tend to overlook just how valuable redemption is, even if from a strategic point of view. If the continuum between right and wrong were to only allow traffic in one direction, towards wrong, then anyone who ever goes in that direction would only be lost. If no path towards reconciliation is allowed, then there’s no reason for anyone who becomes an enemy to pursue it. If a religion were to tell a person that they couldn’t be redeemed, they’d have no reason to join. Political ideologies are similar when it comes to those who may change sides.

As I see it, there isn’t much reason to doubt someone’s redemption if they’re determined to be an asset. What would be the alternative? To insist that such a person must continue to resist them?

When Abraham Lincoln was asked what he’d do with the southern states after the Civil War was over, he answered that he’d treat them as though they never left. His answer was excellent, and his attitude characterizes the relationship between the states today pretty well. Consider the value of having this attitude towards those who wish to join, and you didn’t have to fight a war against them beforehand.