• Meta may plan for annual performance-based job cuts to boost employee performance.
• The strategy aims to increase "non-regrettable attrition" and remove the lowest performers.
• Affected employees will still receive bonuses and stock vesting despite the layoffs.

Meta's performance-based job cuts could become an annual occurrence, according to an internal FAQ document viewed by Business Insider.

The document, shared with employees by Hillary Champion, Meta's director of people development growth programs, addresses whether Meta's upcoming performance-related layoffs will happen every year.

"We are committed to a culture of high performance and are trying to raise the bar by increasing our annual non-regrettable attrition and moving faster to move our lowest performers out," Champion's memo says. "We may use future performance cycles to do that."

The development comes amid an already intense review process designed to cut about 5% of Meta's workforce deemed to be its lowest performers. These cuts are set to be finalized by February 10 for US-based employees, with some international notifications occurring later.

The FAQ also reassures employees that location will not influence their ratings or termination risk and confirms that anyone impacted by the performance reviews will still receive their February 15, 2025 vesting, any due dividends, and bonuses if any are eligible.

Do you work at Meta? Contact BI reporters from a nonwork email and device at [email protected] and [email protected].
You can also reach them via Signal at jyotimann.11 and +1408-905-9124.

• Meta plans to cut 5% of low-performing employees.
• The cuts are part of a strategy to improve performance.
• Meta aims for 10% "non-regrettable attrition," combining last year's and this year's targets.

A memo from one of Meta's human-resources executives explained to managers on Tuesday how the company's performance-based job cuts would work in the coming weeks.

Hillary Champion, Meta's director of people development growth programs, instructed managers to categorize employees into performance tiers based on their contributions over the past year, according to the memo, a copy of which was obtained by Business Insider.

Champion wrote in the memo that Meta aimed to reach 10% "non-regrettable attrition" by the end of this performance cycle, combining last year's 5% with an additional 5% this year. These are employees that the company wouldn't consider a loss if they left.

She signaled that Meta was ramping up pressure on underperformers and trying to more quickly decide who stays and who goes.

"We have really ambitious goals, so we need to manage our workforce in a way that ensures we have the strongest talent working here and can move faster in managing out low performers so that we can bring new people in," Champion said.

Her guidance for managers came shortly after Meta told employees it was preparing to cut about 5% of its lowest-performing staffers as part of an effort to "raise the bar." Meta said it intended to backfill these roles in 2025.

Meta's performance ratings, and who will be cut

BI also obtained a copy of Meta's internal performance guidance on Tuesday. This document describes several categories, one of which is "met most expectations." Other ratings include "met some" and "did not meet."

"Anyone who receives a rating of 'Met Some' or 'Did Not Meet' will be automatically added to the performance termination list," Champion told Meta managers.

"The number of people in the 'Met Most' category to be terminated will vary," she added.

This depends partly on whether Meta's target of 10% non-regrettable attrition is met. Champion shared a theoretical example: If a team had 5% non-regrettable attrition in 2024 and then put 3% of employees in the "met some" rating, an extra 2% of workers from the "met most" group would need to be cut to hit the 10% total.

The coming job cuts are part of a broader strategy to reshape Meta's workforce and become more efficient amid huge investments in AI, virtual reality, and the future of social media.

Last week the company rolled back diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and disbanded its third-party fact-checking program.

Here's the memo from Champion:

Manager Update for the Performance@ Process

Following up on Mark's announcement today, I want to share some details about the role you will need to play through this performance cycle, and offer some guidance on how to lead through this.

What's Happening

• We have really ambitious goals, so we need to manage our workforce in a way that ensures we have the strongest talent working here and can move faster in managing out low performers so that we can bring new people in. As a result, we are exiting approximately 5% of our lowest performers.
• Calibrations continue to be our process for differentiating performance, recognizing impact, and making promotion decisions. In addition to the process overview shared in December, we will be using the calibration window to identify the lowest performers for performance termination.
• Company-wide, we expect to reach 10% non-regrettable attrition by the end of this Performance cycle, inclusive of ~5% non-regrettable attrition from 2024. This means we are aiming to exit approximately another 5% of our current employees who have been with the company long enough to receive a performance rating. The exact percentage will vary by org depending on their non-regrettable attrition in 2024.
• Those who are terminated for performance will receive generous severance packages, in line with previous cuts.
• Org leaders will share more on the the specific backfill process for your Org.

How Performance Calibrations will Work

Below is a topline view of what to expect. HRBPs will guide teams through this and provide more details during calibrations.

- This will be a normal calibration process and we will use the time to identify our strongest performers in addition to our lowest. We will discuss all ratings, flags, edge cases and promotions as usual.

• Consistent with our distribution guidance, teams will need to identify 12-15% of employees who are eligible to receive a performance rating as Met Most and Below ("MMB"). This includes any 2024 non-regrettable attrition, which will be visible in the performance tool and shared with team leaders during calibrations.
  • Example: If your org's 2024 NR attrition was 5%, then your team will need to identify 7-10% to receive MMB ratings in order to meet the 12-15% total.
• As you go through calibrations, your HRBP will also help you differentiate performance by utilizing the Met Some rating more than we have in the past.
• Anyone who receives a rating of "Met Some" or "Did Not Meet" will be automatically added to the performance termination list.
• Later in the calibration process, your Director and VP will review those with a "Met Most" rating to determine who will be terminated to meet the required 10% target. The number of people in the "Met Most" category to be terminated will vary, depending on your org's 2024 non-regrettable attrition rate and how many people are rated "Met Some" or "Did Not Meet"
  • Example: If your org had 5% non-regrettable attrition in 2024, and through calibrations put 3% in the "Met Some" rating, Directors and above will need to select an additional 2% from the "Met Most" group in order to reach the 10% total.
• You should use the flag and notes features within the performance tool to make any recommendations about whether someone with a "Met Most" rating should be included in the performance terminations or not.

Do you work at Meta? Contact BI reporters from a nonwork email and device at [email protected] and [email protected].

You can also reach them via Signal at jyotimann.11 and +1408-905-9124.

• Tech leaders, including an early Facebook investor, launch a $30M campaign for independent social media.
• Free Our Feeds aims to counter billionaire control with the open-source AT Protocol.
• The campaign is led by executives from Mozilla, Social Web Foundation, and other tech nonprofits.

Days after Meta announced controversial changes to its content moderation policies, a group of prominent technology leaders and nonprofit executives launched an ambitious $30 million campaign to build a social media ecosystem free from "billionaire control."

The initiative, called "Free Our Feeds," aims to create independent infrastructure around the AT Protocol, an open-source technology that powers the Bluesky social network, and allows anyone to build their own social media applications, similar to how open web protocols let anyone build websites.

The project comes at a critical moment when traditional social platforms are facing intense scrutiny over their concentrated ownership and control.

"For the first time, we have a clear pathway to securing the future of social media as a tool for connection, creativity, and joy," Nabiha Syed, Executive Director of Mozilla Foundation and one of nine custodians overseeing the project, said in a statement. "But it will take community-driven resources and independent infrastructure to ensure it remains free from the pressures of venture capital and billionaire capture."

The campaign's immediate goal is to raise $4 million as part of a larger $30 million three-year effort. The funds will be used to establish a public interest foundation supporting the AT Protocol and build independent infrastructure including a second "relay" system. The relay is effectively a backup index of all content on the network that ensures developers and users can access posts even if Bluesky restricts access to its data. The capital will also be used to fund developers to create new applications on the protocol.

At the time of publishing, the campaign had raised nearly $18,000 from 273 donors on GoFundMe.

According to Syed, one of the Foundation's key goals is to operate the AT Protocol infrastructure independently from Bluesky.

"The greater the number of stakeholders who build on AT Protocol, the more countervailing power they have with regards to Bluesky or any other large company involved in the network," she told Business Insider. "The Foundation will operate AT Protocol infrastructure independently from Bluesky to ensure that there is always an alternative."

Roger McNamee, an early Facebook investor turned tech critic who is backing the initiative, told BI that the project comes at a time when users are increasingly frustrated with existing platforms.

"We're in a world right now where every new startup is either crypto or AI," McNamee said. "Show me something that might actually make the world a better place. If this works, it's going to make the world a much better place."

Over the last few months, Bluesky has seen explosive growth. BI reported last week that the company is in the final stages of raising new funding led by Bain Capital Ventures that would value it at around $700 million. The platform reached nearly 26 million users by the end of 2024, with nearly half joining in the last six weeks of the year following Donald Trump's election victory.

While Bluesky has positioned itself as an alternative to X, Free Our Feeds' backers argue that even Bluesky's venture capital-backed structure could eventually face similar pressures as other commercial platforms.

"Bluesky is built on values we share, by people we admire. However, founders are not companies," the project's FAQ states. "They will come under the same pressure all businesses face to maximize return to their investors."

The campaign's nine custodians include executives from Mozilla, the Social Web Foundation, and other nonprofit technology organizations. Development Gateway, a US nonprofit organization, will hold funds raised through the crowdfunding campaign.

The timing of the announcement comes just as Meta significantly scaled back its fact-checking program and as X continues to struggle with advertiser exodus under Musk's leadership. The initiative's backers argue that these recent developments highlight the risks of concentrated ownership of social platforms.

"We've gone a really long time since people in Silicon Valley actually solved a problem that existed," McNamee noted, arguing that the project represents a rare opportunity to address fundamental issues with how social media platforms are structured and controlled.

The foundation aims to be operational by the end of 2025. While ambitious in scope, the project's backers acknowledge the challenges ahead but argue that recent events at major platforms have created an opening for fundamental change in how social media operates.

"Centralized ownership of platforms — our digital public square — leads to a constantly shifting, opaque digital environment in which people can lose their digital public square and livelihoods from a single billionaire's decision," Syed said.

"We can do better. The internet doesn't need to be like this, and if we work together, it won't be."

• Meta's chief marketing officer Alex Schultz is concerned that "too much censorship" is harmful.
• Schultz's comments come after Meta updated several policies, including content moderation.
• The new guidelines change what is permissible to be said about LGBTQ+ people.

Meta's chief marketing officer warned that greater censorship on its platforms could "harm speech" from the LGBTQ+ community aiming to push back against hate.

Alex Schultz posted his feelings on Meta's decision to change its policy on hateful conduct earlier this week in a post on its internal forum.

"My perspective is we've done well as a community when the debate has happened and I was shocked with how far we've gone with censorship of the debate," Schultz wrote in the post, seen by Business Insider.

He added that his friends and family were shocked to see him receive abuse as a gay man in the past, but that it helped them to realize hatred exists.

"Most of our progress on rights happened during periods without mass censorship like this and pushing it underground, I think, has coincided with reversals," he said.

"Obviously, I don't like people saying things that I consider awful but I worry that the solution of censoring that doesn't work as well as you might hope. So I don't know the answer, this stuff is really complicated, but I am worried that too much censorship is actually harmful and that's may have been where we ended up."

Earlier this week, the company adjusted its moderation guidelines to allow statements on its platforms claiming that LGBTQ+ people are "mentally ill" and removed trans and nonbinary-themed chat options from its Messenger app, features that had previously been showcased as part of the company's support for Pride Month.

Schultz also said that he does not think that censorship and cancel culture have helped the LGBTQ+ movement.

He wrote, "We don't enforce these things perfectly," and cited an example of a mistake of taking down images of two men kissing and removing a slur word toward gay people rather than a deliberate move by a "bigoted person in operations."

Schultz added, "So the more rules we have, the more mistakes we make…Moderation is hard and we'll always get it wrong somewhat. The more rules, the more censorship, the more we'll harm speech from our own community pushing back on hatred."

The company's latest decision to roll back its DEI programs has sparked intense internal debate and public scrutiny. The announcement, delivered via an internal memo by VP of HR Janelle Gale, said that the company would dismantle its dedicated DEI team and eliminate diversity programs in its hiring process.

The company said Tuesday it will replace third-party fact-checkers on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads with a community notes system, mirroring the approach used on Elon Musk's platform, X.

Schulz told BI in an interview earlier this week that the election of Donald Trump and a broader shift in public sentiment around free speech played significant roles in these decisions.

He acknowledged that internal and external pressures had led Meta to adopt more restrictive policies in recent years, but the company is now taking steps to regain control over its approach to content moderation.

Meta's internal forum, Workplace, saw reactions ranging from anger and disappointment to cautious optimism about the company's direction.

One employee lamented the rollback as "another step backward" for Meta, while others raised concerns about the message it sends to marginalized communities that rely on Meta's platforms.

At Meta's offices in Silicon Valley, Texas, and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men's bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men's room and may require sanitary products, The New York Times reported on Friday.

Meta didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

You can email Jyoti Mann at [email protected], send her a secure message on Signal @jyotimann.11 or DM her via X @jyoti_mann1

If you're a current or former Meta employee, contact this reporter from a nonwork device securely on Signal at +1-408-905-9124 or email him at [email protected].

• Mark Zuckerberg dismisses concerns over users leaving after Meta ends U.S. fact-checking.
• Meta plans to replace third party fact-checking with a crowdsourced Community Notes system like X's.
• Zuckerberg is confident Community Notes will improve user experience and attract new users.

Mark Zuckerberg dismissed concerns about users leaving Meta platforms in response to the company's decision to end its U.S. fact-checking program, saying any exits would be "virtue signaling."

In a reply on Threads to a user's post criticizing Meta's influence and suggesting that people feel trapped on the platform, Zuckerberg struck a defiant tone.

"No – I'm counting on these changes actually making our platforms better," he wrote.

I think Community Notes will be more effective than fact-checkers, reducing the number of people whose accounts get mistakenly banned is good, people want to be able to discuss civic topics and make arguments that are in the mainstream of political discourse, etc. Some people may leave our platforms for virtue signaling, but I think the vast majority and many new users will find that these changes make the products better.

Zuckerberg's response to the Threads user named Mary-Frances Makichen, who has 253 followers and is a "Spiritual Director" and author according to their bio, came just one day after Meta announced it would replace its third-party fact-checking partnerships with a crowdsourced Community Notes system similar to the one used by X.

Mass departures from social media platforms for symbolic reasons are not unprecedented.

On Election Day in the US, more than a quarter million X users deleted their accounts in protest against owner Elon Musk's deepening ties to the Trump administration.

Zuckerberg, however, appears unfazed, betting that Community Notes will enhance Meta's user experience and attract new audiences rather than drive them away.

If you're a current or former Meta employee, contact this reporter from a nonwork device securely on Signal at +1-408-905-9124 or email him at [email protected].

• Meta plans to end US fact-checking partnerships in March, with payments to continue through August.
• Meta has cited "changing free speech perceptions" as part of the reason for their decision.
• Meta's global fact-checking support remains, including an IFCN Business Continuity Fund.

Meta's US fact-checking partnerships will officially end in March, and payments to partners will continue through August, Business Insider has learned.

Details of an exchange between Meta and Angie Holan, the director of the International Fact-Checking Network, were revealed during a private IFCN meeting attended by more than 150 members, the audio of which was obtained by Business Insider. These details have not been previously reported.

Meta informed the IFCN it was ending its fact-checking partnerships just 45 minutes before the company published a blog post about the decision, written by Joel Kaplan, Meta's new head of public policy who has long-standing ties to the Republican Party.

The company said its new approach was prompted by "changing perceptions of free speech" and a desire to "allow for more free speech."

Severance and a support fund for fact-checkers

Contracts with all 10 fact-checking organizations in the US will end in March, with payments continuing until August. Organizations that have not signed contracts for 2025 were offered the option to participate in a severance program.

Kaplan's post said that Meta will replace its fact-checking partnerships with X-style community notes — but the Meta executive told Holan that the rollout of community notes is expected to take time.

Meta indicated that the system would be built and implemented throughout 2025. When asked whether the company intends to expand community notes globally, Meta gave a noncommittal response, saying it would first monitor the program's effects in the US and consider the regulatory landscape in other countries.

Participation guidelines for the program remain unclear.

When Holan pressed Meta on how the IFCN should navigate the divide between US changes and the status of global programs, Meta's response was vague, advising the IFCN to "stay present for both constituencies."

Holan expressed disappointment during the conversation, describing Meta's fact-checking program as one that "positively influenced a whole ecosystem of fact-checking" and emphasized that the work was never about censorship.

"This seems like politics," she told the Meta executive, who declined to confirm or deny political motivations, stating only that they were "personally proud" of the program's legacy.

Meta's support for other IFCN initiatives will remain unchanged. This includes the IFCN's new Business Continuity Fund, designed to provide temporary financial assistance to fact-checking organizations affected by natural disasters, civil unrest, military conflicts, or state repression.

The fund aims to help organizations resume their normal operations as quickly as possible and ensure the safety and well-being of their team members. Meta also confirmed that a separate WhatsApp-related grant program would continue.

However, when asked whether Meta would continue sponsoring Global Fact, IFCN's flagship annual conference, the executive had no definitive answer, suggesting that IFCN "stay in conversation" about the issue.

Despite the end of its US fact-checking program, the executive left the door open for continued communication with IFCN, saying Meta was "open to keep talking" about ways to support public information efforts.

IFCN partners blindsided financially

Many IFCN partners were blindsided by the announcement, as they had assumed that their work with Meta would continue.

"Several of the signatories were waiting for their new contracts," Holan said in the meeting. "The new contracts did come over the winter break. Things just seemed on course with the program in the US. We didn't have any alerts or messages that something like yesterday's news was coming."

The abrupt end left partners reeling.

Jesse Stiller, the managing editor of Check Your Fact, a Meta US fact-checking partner for five years, described the fallout.

"We had just signed our contract for 2025, and it looked like we were going to sign another one for 2026 if everything went to plan," Stiller said in the meeting. "We found out about the news literally when we woke up the next morning. The first thing I saw was a news notification — I thought it might be a mistake. Everything was thrown into chaos."

Stiller said that Check Your Fact is almost entirely reliant on Meta's funding. "We don't have any other external funding. Meta is our primary revenue source," he said.

Check Your Fact's team of 10 faces an uncertain future, he said. "The best-case scenario is that we last a few more months with the severance package. But honestly, we're done by March."

During the meeting, several fact-checkers voiced frustration not only with the program's termination but also with Zuckerberg's recent comments about fact-checkers.

Jency Jacob, the managing editor of the India-based fact-checking organization Boom, suggested that US fact-checkers formally call on Zuckerberg to retract his remarks.

"Basically, what he's done is he's literally burnt the house down," Jacob said. "For many years to come, his statements will continue to be used against fact-checkers."

Holan acknowledged the emotional toll but urged attendees to maintain professionalism.

"We do want to maintain a certain level of civility so that we can continue the relationships with Meta in the future when circumstances change or the political environment shifts," she said. "We don't want to say things that aren't necessary and could end dialogue."

The ripple effects of Meta's decision were felt globally.

Justin Arenstein, the cofounder and CEO of Code for Africa, an African network of data journalism labs, said that Meta's Middle East and North Africa team was also blindsided.

"The decision caught many of Meta's MENA team by surprise. They were discussing the expansion of our contract to new countries as recently as two weeks ago," Arenstein wrote in the meeting chat.

If you're a current or former Meta employee, contact this reporter from a nonwork device securely on Signal at +1-408-905-9124 or email him at [email protected].

• Meta is ending US fact-checking partnerships and shifting to crowdsourced moderation tools.
• The International Fact-Checking Network called an emergency meeting after the announcement.
• Meta's decision affects the financial sustainability of fact-checking organizations.

The International Fact-Checking Network has convened an emergency meeting of its members following Meta's announcement on Tuesday that it will end its third-party fact-checking partnerships in the US and replace them with a crowdsourced moderation tool similar to X's community notes.

In an exclusive interview with Business Insider, the IFCN's director, Angie Holan, confirmed that the meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, was organized in direct response to Meta's decision.

"We hold these meetings monthly, but we called this one specifically because of today's news," she said.

The meeting is expected to draw between 80 and 100 attendees from the IFCN's network of fact-checkers, which spans 170 organizations worldwide. Not all the expected attendees are Meta fact-checking partners, though many of them have a stake in the program's future and its global implications.

The IFCN has long played a crucial role in Meta's fact-checking ecosystem by accrediting organizations for Meta's third-party program, which began in 2016 after the US presidential election that year.

Certification from the IFCN signaled that a fact-checking organization met rigorous editorial and transparency standards. Meta's partnerships with these certified organizations became a cornerstone of its efforts to combat misinformation, focusing on flagging false claims, contextualizing misinformation, and curbing its spread.

'People are upset'

Holan described the mood among fact-checkers as somber and frustrated.

"This program has been a major part of the global fact-checking community's work for years," she said. "People are upset because they saw themselves as partners in good standing with Meta, doing important work to make the platform more accurate and reliable."

She noted that fact-checkers were not responsible for removing posts, only for labeling misleading content and limiting its virality.

"It was never about censorship but about adding context to prevent false claims from going viral," Holan said.

A last-minute heads-up

An employee at PolitiFact, one of the first news organizations to partner with Meta on its Third-Party Fact-Checking Program in December 2016, said the company received virtually no warning from Meta before the program was killed.

"The PolitiFact team found out this morning at the same time as everyone else," the employee told BI.

An IFCN employee who was granted anonymity told BI that the organization itself got a heads-up only "late yesterday" via email that something was coming. It asked for a 6 a.m. call — about an hour before Meta's blog post written by its new Republican policy head, Joel Kaplan, went live.

"I had a feeling it was bad news," this employee said.

Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

Financial fallout for fact-checkers

Meta's decision could have serious financial consequences for fact-checking organizations, especially those that relied heavily on funding from the platform.

According to a 2023 report published by the IFCN, income from Meta's Third-Party Fact-Checking Program and grants remain fact-checkers' predominant revenue streams.

"Fact-checking isn't going away, and many robust organizations existed before Meta's program and will continue after it," Holan said. "But some fact-checking initiatives were created because of Meta's support, and those will be vulnerable."

She also underscored the broader challenges facing the industry, saying that fact-checking organizations share the same financial pressures as newsrooms. "This is bad news for the financial sustainability of fact-checking journalism," she said.

Skepticism toward community notes

Meta plans to replace its partnerships with community notes, a crowd-based system modeled after X's approach.

Holan expressed doubt that this model could serve as an effective substitute for expert-led fact-checking.

"Community notes on X have only worked in cases where there's bipartisan agreement — and how often does that happen?" she said. "When two political sides disagree, there's no independent way to flag something as false."

It's not yet clear how Meta's implementation of community notes will work.

'We'll be here after' Meta's program

Despite the uncertainty, Holan remains steadfast in the IFCN's mission.

"The IFCN was here before Meta's program, and we'll be here after it," she said. "We may look different in size and scope, but we'll continue promoting the highest standards in fact-checking and connecting organizations that want to collaborate worldwide."

Holan said Wednesday's meeting would focus on supporting IFCN members as they navigate this transition.

"We're here to help them figure out the best way forward," she said.

If you're a current or former Meta employee, contact this reporter from a nonwork device securely on Signal at +1-408-905-9124 or email him at [email protected].

• Donald Trump recently appointed Sriram Krishnan to an AI advisory role.
• Krishnan came to the US from India in 2007 and became a US citizen in 2016.
• Indian tech workers initially praised his appointment, but have grown concerned by MAGA criticism.

Anuj Christian's green card was approved in 2019, a decade after he first came to the US as a graduate student from India. Since then, he's been waiting to receive it, one of thousands trapped in a lengthy backlog created by America's byzantine immigration system.

Earlier this month, Christian was hopeful for the first time in years. Just before Christmas, Donald Trump announced that Sriram Krishnan, a first-generation Indian American, would serve as a senior White House policy advisor for AI. Krishnan is set to work closely with Trump's new "crypto czar" David Sacks, an early investor in Facebook, SpaceX, Uber, and Palantir.

For Christian, Krishnan's appointment felt personal. "Sriram has personally been through the immigration system," said Christian, who runs an immigration reform group called FAIR. "Someone who has personally been through this issue is close to the president now. That has never happened before."

From Chennai to Silicon Valley

Krishnan arrived in the US in 2007 from Chennai, India, to begin a six-year stint at Microsoft. From there, he climbed the ranks of Silicon Valley, holding senior roles at Yahoo, Snap, Facebook, and Twitter. In 2020, he moved to venture capital, becoming a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz.

Along the way, Krishnan became a US citizen in 2016, a milestone that eludes many legal immigrants from India. The green card backlog, a byproduct of per-country caps on employment-based permanent US residency, has left thousands of skilled workers from India in limbo. Wait times can now exceed beyond a lifetime.

Krishnan's appointment comes with a unique resonance for those impacted by this system. He has spoken openly about the challenges of navigating US immigration and has advocated for raising the country-based green card caps. These calls for reform have been a recurring theme of The Aarthi and Sriram Show, a podcast he hosts with his tech entrepreneur wife Aarthi Ramamurthy.

MAGA backlash

Krishnan's visibility and advocacy have turned him into a lightning rod for MAGA followers, though. In the days since Trump's announcement, the technologist has faced hate speech and racism directed not just at him but also at Indians and legal immigration in general. Krishnan declined to comment.

The backlash began with a tweet from far-right activist Laura Loomer, who criticized his appointment as "deeply disturbing" and said it conflicted with Trump's "America First" agenda.

Loomer accused Krishnan of advocating to "remove all restrictions on green card caps" and enabling foreign workers to take jobs from American STEM graduates, citing Silicon Valley's reliance on international talent as a threat to domestic innovation. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, who was Trump's initial pick for attorney general, accused "tech bros" of engineering "an immigration policy."

H-1B visa debate

Rahul Menon, an Indian-born engineer from Rhode Island and host of Area51, a podcast about immigration, believes hate speech directed at Krishnan reflects broader misconceptions about skilled immigrants in the US.

"They just assume we are here to steal everyone's jobs," Menon told Business Insider. "If people understood the process of getting through an H-1B and the number of hoops you need to jump through, it's insane. The hate that Sriram is getting is just the beginning. You just need a thick skin to do the job."

Some of the scorn has been directed at H-1Bs, a common visa type that Silicon Valley companies and tech outsourcing firms use to hire foreign workers in the US. This particular system is also overwhelmed by huge volumes of applications for a limited number of slots each year. Bloomberg News uncovered a scheme earlier this year, known as "multiple registration," that manipulates the H-1B program and prevents what it described as legitimate talent from accessing these skilled-worker visa-based opportunities.

Recent optimism

Menon noted that optimism around addressing the green card backlog has been steadily growing, fueled by statements from high-profile figures. During a June appearance on the All-In Podcast hosted by VCs including Sacks, Trump expressed support for granting green cards to all US college graduates. Trump also recently voiced support for H-1B visas.

Menon sees Krishnan's appointment as the latest in a series of developments boosting morale among advocates for US immigration reform.

"It started with Trump saying that, then with Vivek, and now with Sriram — it's the cherry on top," Menon said, referring to Vivek Ramaswamy, another Trump advisor whose parents immigrated from Kerala, India. Ramaswamy has repeatedly called for the H-1B lottery system to be replaced with a selection process based on merit.

"AI stands for artificial intelligence, not American Indian"

Others remain skeptical about Krishnan's ability to influence immigration policy in his new role.

Sacks addressed the speculation directly in a tweet: "Sriram has been a US citizen for a decade. He's not 'running America.' He's advising on AI policy. He will have no influence over US immigration policy." The post appeared aimed at calming criticism from MAGA loyalists and quelling hope among some Indian immigrants that Krishnan's appointment would lead to immediate changes.

Ash Arora, a partner at VC firm LocalGlobe, and a friend of Krishnan and his wife, Ramamurthy, cautioned against reading too much into Krishnan's role when it comes to immigration reform.

"Sriram has been hired for AI — and AI stands for artificial intelligence, not American Indian," she told Business Insider. "I'm not sure whether Sriram will have a say in immigration matters, but the optimism about legal immigration being fixed, in my opinion, is misguided."

Ultimately, Krishnan is an AI policy advisor, Area51's Menon said. "I'd like to hope things will change. But let's not count our chickens before they've hatched."

• Meta's Horizon app topped Apple's App Store on Christmas Day, signaling strong VR headset demand.
• Quest headsets, starting at $299, are gaining mainstream traction in virtual reality.
• Despite strong demand, Meta's Reality Labs faces significant financial losses.

Meta's virtual reality ambitions got a Christmas boost this year.

On Christmas Day, the company's Meta Horizon app, which users must download to set up the Quest virtual reality headsets developed by Meta, was the top free app in Apple's App Store in the US and the UK, indicating strong holiday demand.

Meta has never disclosed how many Quest headsets it has sold. The surge in app downloads suggests that the Quest is solidifying its status as one of the most mainstream VR headsets. The devices, which start at $299 and are developed by Meta's Reality Labs division, are a relatively affordable gateway to virtual and mixed-reality experiences. They let people watch movies on giant virtual screens, play immersive games, and even work out.

Meta did not respond to a request for comment about Quest sales from Business Insider.

Quest competes with VR headsets from other companies, including Sony, HTC, and Apple, although Apple's Vision Pro headset costs much more, at $3,500.

Meta has been working to make VR more accessible to a broader audience. In October, the company launched the Quest 3S, a less expensive version of the more advanced Quest 3, priced at $299 — $200 less than the standard model. Like the Quest 3, the 3S lets people experience mixed reality in full color, making it a compelling entry point for VR newcomers.

Meta's quarterly revenue from Reality Labs, which includes $299 Ray-Ban glasses that let people take pictures and talk to Meta's AI chatbot, was $270 million — an increase of 29% compared to the same quarter the year before, the company announced in October.

Still, Reality Labs continues to bleed money. In the third quarter of 2024, Meta reported that Reality Labs lost $4.4 billion, up from $3.7 billion in the same quarter of 2023. For the first nine months of 2024, Reality Labs lost nearly $13 billion, Meta's earnings report said, and the company has warned investors that it expects the division to lose even more money.

"Overall, I'd say Reality Labs is clearly one of our strategic long-term priorities," said Susan Li, Meta's chief financial officer, responding to a question about Reality Labs' losses on the earnings call. She added that Meta expects it to "be an area of significant investment as we build out towards the very ambitious product road map that we have there."

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has remained bullish on the company's VR strategy. On the call, Zuckerberg highlighted the company's strong demand for its Ray-Ban glasses and expressed optimism about Orion, an early prototype of its glasses that superimpose digital elements onto the real world.

"We're not too far off from being able to deliver great-looking glasses that let you seamlessly blend the physical and digital worlds," Zuckerberg said on the earnings call.

Unlike the Meta Horizon app for Quest headsets, Meta View, the app for setting up the Ray-Ban glasses, however, isn't on the App Store's top charts.

• A survey shows Bluesky users are more Democratic and politically engaged than Threads users.
• Threads has 300 million monthly users, surpassing Bluesky's 24 million.
• Bluesky allows users to add their own moderation policies.

A new survey revealed stark political and behavioral differences between users of rival social media platforms Bluesky and Meta-owned Threads.

Bluesky's user base skews heavily Democratic, with nearly half of its users identifying with the party, according to findings published earlier this month by CivicScience, a research and survey company. In contrast, only 34% of Threads users identified as either Democrat or Independent.

The study also found that Bluesky users are more politically engaged overall. And nearly three-quarters of them said that they experienced higher levels of stress postelection. In contrast, 33% of people who used Threads daily said that their stress levels decreased after Donald Trump's victory on November 5.

"With the surge of Bluesky coming so directly in the wake of the presidential election, it's not surprising that the user base is disproportionately more left-leaning than the user base of Threads," John Dick, CivicScience CEO and founder, told Business Insider.

The survey included 12,188 Threads users and 5,431 Bluesky users. This roughly mirrors the ratio of both platforms' user bases in the adult US population, as 18% of respondents reported using Threads daily, compared to 8% for Bluesky, CivicScience data found.

Both social networks experienced significant user growth following the US election, particularly as billionaire Elon Musk, the owner of X, threw his weight behind Trump and actively promoted misinformation that reportedly garnered over 2 billion views.

Still, Threads seems to be eating Bluesky's lunch. Earlier this month, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the platform had more than 300 million monthly active users, compared to Bluesky's 24 million users at the beginning of this month.

Bluesky began life inside Twitter in 2019 as a project started under the company's former CEO, Jack Dorsey. Its goal was to give users more control over moderation. Bluesky has been an independent company since 2021 and is a decentralized social network.

Bluesky is powered by the "AT Protocol" (Authenticated Transfer Protocol), which means that while Bluesky operates the main server, anyone can create and run their own server that can work with Bluesky. This allows users to choose different providers while maintaining a unified social network experience. Crucially, this also means that users can add their own moderation policies on top of Bluesky's built-in moderation systems.

"The decentralized moderation policies of Bluesky, which allow for more proliferation of political content on the platform, could be exacerbating this phenomenon," said Dick of Bluesky's left-leaning user base, "as Democrats and liberals create a sort of tribal safe space for their views and conversations."

Beyond politics, the survey revealed an optimism gap between the two platforms regarding AI. Bluesky users appear to be significantly more bullish on the technology, with 62% believing that AI will have at least a somewhat positive impact on the quality of their lives over the next decade, compared to 51% of Threads users.

Overall, More Bluesky users are likely to use platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and X every day compared to Threads users who gravitate toward Facebook and Instagram, which are both owned by Meta.