Mark Zuckerberg distances himself from himself.

He cuts the roots of the company he co-founded in 2004 and still runs today and gives it a new name.

In the future, Facebook will become meta.

Facebook will only be one product among many under the meta umbrella, albeit still a very significant one.

This certainly reflects reality insofar as Facebook no longer defines the business of the internet giant in a similar way as it used to and has many other products such as Instagram or WhatsApp next to it.

However, Facebook's eponymous service does define the majority of the controversies associated with the company, including the current whistleblower affair.

The revelations made by former colleague Frances Haugen are causing quite a stir.

Their core allegation is that Facebook knows a lot about the risks of harmful content on its platforms, but does little about it out of greed for profit.

Facebook's reputation is battered

Facebook's reputation has been battered so far, thanks to the data scandal surrounding the British company Cambridge Analytica and various other negative headlines.

In rankings of the most valuable brands, Facebook usually ranks well behind other US technology companies such as Apple.

Haugen's revelations made Facebook's name even more toxic.

Instead, Facebook is now giving itself a largely harmless and less polluted name.

And as the head of the Meta group, it may be easier for Zuckerberg to steer away from the controversies and help to bring the “Metaverse” concept he is pursuing, which he has made the core of his strategy, more to the fore .

And thus enable him to appear a little more as a futurist instead of a scandalous entrepreneur.

The new identity is first and foremost cosmetic and does not change the dark side of Facebook's platforms. It also leaves Facebook's structure intact, which Zuckerberg endows with an abundance of power that is unusual even for the technology industry. In addition to being the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, he also controls a majority of the voting rights.

In the debate about harmful content, Zuckerberg often says that he hated the fact that Facebook had to make so many decisions that were actually the responsibility of regulators.

So when it comes to these uncomfortable questions, he would like to delegate responsibility.

That sounds pretty stale when it comes from someone who has set up his company in such a way that he can run it as sole ruler.

And even a new name cannot detract from this unhealthy level of control.