Vladimir Putin throws Tucker Carlson under the bus, Kim Godwin gets a new boss, Jim VandeHei torches Jimmy Finkelstein, a new poll reveals the extent in which GOPers buy into the absurd Taylor Swift-NFL conspiracy theory, Mark Zuckerberg posts his review of Apple Vision Pro, Harvey Weinstein heads back to court, and more. But first, the A1.

All Politics Are Social

CNN Photo Illustration/Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency/Getty Imaes

What constitutes "political" content?

It's an important question that Meta has conspicuously left unanswered, despite the Mark Zuckerberg-led social giant vowing last week to clamp down on the topic across both Instagram and Threads — an extraordinary move that will have far-reaching and significant consequences for the public discourse.

In a series of posts announcing the policy, Adam Mosseri , the Meta executive who oversees both Instagram and Threads, said the company does not want to "proactively amplify political content from accounts you don't follow." Mosseri said that the platforms will still show users content from the accounts they have chosen to follow, but added that the company will "avoid recommending political content" to the broader masses.

"Our goal is to preserve the ability for people to choose to interact with political content, while respecting each person’s appetite for it," Mosseri explained. 

The sweeping and opaque decision to reduce certain content it deems undesirable further extends Meta's announcement in the fall that Threads is "not going go to amplify news on the platform," sending chills through the community, much of which had just fled Elon Musk's X for a stable platform to share information.

And while some initially viewed the decision to reduce political content as positive, potentially reducing the platform's ability to algorithmically recommend bogus or inflammatory content and sending users down dark rabbit holes, it quickly raised alarm among many who questioned the scope and rationale in the run-up to a high-stakes election.

"The fact that there is no definition is concerning," Judd Legum, who writes the independent Popular Information newsletter and frequently posts his reporting on the platform, told me Wednesday. 

It is perhaps, a lofty goal, to operate a social media safe space not penetrated by the daily monsoon of distressing news radiating out of Washington, D.C., (though the replies to Mosseri's posts might indicate otherwise). But it's easier said than done. After all, a lot of potential content can easily be categorized as "political."

"The challenge is identifying what is or isn’t political content," billionaire Mark Cuban replied to Mosseri's post on Threads, echoing the sentiment of a deluge of others. "How will you determine what is or isn't?"

Mosseri didn't reply to Cuban and Meta has dodged questions on the matter.

"Meta seems unable to define 'political' content," Charlie Warzel, a staff writer at The Atlantic who covers the intersection of technology, politics, and culture, told me. "To be fair, it’s a tough ask, especially in an election year because politics is not some neatly confineable element of life — it is intertwined with culture, pop culture, and news about everything from tech to business to health and science."

While the company has grown allergic to political conversations flowing through its platforms, it still has no problem boosting paid political posts. According to Meta's Ad Library, the company has raked in more than $4 billion in political and social issues ad spending since 2018.

A Meta spokesperson told me that Mosseri was traveling Wednesday and could not be made available for an interview to get clarification on the new policy. When I asked whether Mosseri, might have time later in the week, I didn't hear back. It seems that Mosseri, who rarely grants interviews to the press, seems to prefer sporadically replying to posts of his own choosing on Threads when he wants to address a matter. (Remind you of another social media boss?)

The Meta spokesperson, instead, offered this vague statement: "Informed by research, our definition of political content is content likely to be about topics related to government or elections; for example, posts about laws, elections, or social topics. These global issues are complex and dynamic, which means this definition will evolve as we continue to engage with the people and communities who use our platforms and external experts to refine our approach."

The statement only raised more questions than answers. A lot can be categorized under the banner of "social topics."

For example, does climate change fall under this umbrella? Women's rights issues? LGBTQ issues? Meta simply won't say.

"My concern, both as an independent publisher and an LGBTQ person who occasionally writes about her own life, is that my writing and links will get swept up into the 'political' category, whether or not it actually is about politics," Parker Malloy, who authors the The Present Age newsletter, commented to me. 

It's not just limited to social issues. Will posts about how tech platforms are battling misinformation be considered "political"? What about posts debunking falsehoods about vaccines? Or sharing information rebutting the absurd Taylor Swift Super Bowl conspiracy theories? How about posting video of Jimmy Kimmel at the Oscars joking about the country's state of affairs?

And will news organizations no longer be recommended to users because they post updates on the White House or 2024 election? Has Meta considered that this could prompt publishers to dramatically change how they use its platforms and cease posting important information on its platforms? If a celebrity, such as Swift, posts a political endorsement, will their account be restricted too?

I presented these questions to the Meta spokesperson and noted that it is simply unclear where the company is drawing the line. The spokesperson had no response.

Warzel argued that a problem for companies like Meta is that audiences don't seem to know what they want social networks to do about moderation, though most would likely prefer to not have polarizing content boosted into their feeds.

"It’s this terrible no-win situation," Warzel added, "where Meta is making a sweeping editorial decision in order to make fewer editorial decisions, and audiences who want platforms out of their politics, but don't want them to let hyper-partisan garbage run wild and unchecked."

CNN Photo Illustration/zarubinreporter/Telegram

Putin Plays His Puppet: Just when you thought it couldn't get any more embarrassing for Tucker Carlson , it does. After flying out to Moscow to volunteer as Vladimir Putin's propaganda poodle, Carlson was thrown under the bus by the Russian authoritarian, who mocked the former Fox News host's softball questions in a new interview Wednesday. "I honestly thought he would be aggressive and ask tough questions," Putin told pro-Kremlin journalist Pavel Zarubin . "I wasn't only ready for that, I wanted that, because it would give me the opportunity to give tough answers back." Putin added, "To be frank, I didn't fully enjoy that interview." Ouch. POLITICO's Zoya Sheftalovich has more.

CNN Photo Illustration/Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Debra's Disney Dominion: Meet the new ABC News boss. Disney announced Wednesday it had tapped company veteran Debra OConnell for the new role as president overseeing ABC News and its local stations. In other words, Kim Godwin, president of ABC News (at least in title), has a new boss. "Definitely a demotion [for Godwin]," one former Disney executive texted to me, upon hearing the news. "Any time you're pushed further away from Bob Iger , it's not a good sign." Or as another media executive put it, Godwin is "layered and diminished." Inside ABC News, I'm told that there is "a lot of jubilation" over the shakeup. That's because, in the words of another staffer, "Since Kim took over, morale has been at an all-time low."

OConnell is widely respected inside and outside of Disney, whereas Godwin is... well, you already know (I'm trying to be nice here, okay?). Sources in the industry described OConnell to me on Wednesday in the most positive of terms, calling her "smart," "a pro," and someone who is "good with talent" and "not afraid to make tough calls." One of the media execs I spoke to elaborated, "She works long nights and weekends. She will push very hard on every detail and it will be quite a culture shock after Kim who is an absentee leader and who has allowed the organization to languish."

Officially, Burbank is standing by Godwin and pointed me to the memo that went out from OConnell praising her "remarkable leadership." And, as Disney announced that Godwin will get added supervision, the company also disclosed she had renewed her contract. But the industry is littered with executives who have signed deals only to exit early (Bob Chapek , anyone?). So we'll see how long this arrangement lasts. One worry that was raised to me is the uniting of ABC News under the same umbrella as the network's local stations could signal that more cuts are looming on the horizon. 

CNN Photo Illustration/Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Their Wildest Normal Dreams: It's gone from the fringe to fairly mainstream — at least in GOP circles. Approximately one in three Republicans say they believe the absurd conspiracy theory that Taylor Swift is an asset of the government involved in a covert psychological operation with the NFL and Travis Kelce to help Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump at the 2024 ballot box. Yes, we are not making that up. It's all according to actual polling data released Wednesday by Monmouth University. "The supposed Taylor Swift PsyOp conspiracy has legs among a decent number of Trump supporters," Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement. Our very own Liam Reilly has more.

🔎 Zooming in: The poll shows how quickly outlandish conspiracy theories — that many laugh off as too ridiculous to believe — can be accepted by those who live in certain information circles polluted with lies and conspiracy theories. It's not a joke! Our poisoned information environment is an important subject that often leads to real-world action (i.e. an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, swaths of the population declining life-saving vaccines, etc.) and deserves serious coverage.

CNN Photo Illustration/Mark Zuckerberg/Instagram

Zuck Bites the Apple: Add Mark Zuckerberg to the list of A-listers who have tried Apple's Vision Pro over the last few weeks. The Meta boss said in a video posted to his Instagram account Wednesday that he finally tested out the new product, which is a direct competitor to Meta's own Quest headsets. "Before this, I expected that Quest would be the better value for most people because it’s really good and it’s like seven times less expensive," Zuckerberg said in the video, a reference to Quest 3's $500 price tag versus the $3,500 for Vision Pro. "But after using it, I don’t just think Quest is the better value, I think Quest is the better product, period." Zuckerberg then went on to tout that Quest does a lot of the tasks that Apple's does, even boasting that his product does certain things better. I'm sure Tim Cook fell out of his chair upon hearing that news. CNN's Clare Duffy has more here.

CNN Photo Illustration/Etienne Laurent/Pool/Getty Images

Weinstein's Wish: Disgraced filmmaker Harvey Weinstein was back in court on Wednesday. Nearly four years after his 2020 rape conviction, the one-time Hollywood kingmaker, whose abuse of women touched off the #MeToo movement that upended the media industry, asked a New York appeals court to overturn the ruling. Of course, in the unlikely scenario that the sentence is overturned, Weinstein was also convicted last year of rape in Los Angeles. The AP's Michael Sisak has more here.