This week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the company would scrap its third-party fact-checking program and loosen restrictions on sensitive topics, citing the need to reduce “censorship” and restore “free expression.” The move aligns with a broader trend of tech platforms abandoning centralized moderation, a shift championed by conservatives who argue such efforts stifle free speech.
Zuckerberg characterized the decision as a response to changing cultural dynamics, referencing the re-election of President-elect Donald Trump as a “tipping point.” However, critics, including misinformation experts and global organizations, see it as a capitulation to political pressure.
Fact-Checking in Retreat
Meta’s fact-checking program, launched in 2016 after criticism of its role in spreading misinformation during Trump’s first campaign, marked a significant effort to combat false narratives online. By partnering with over 80 organizations globally, the initiative downgraded false content in news feeds and provided explanations to users attempting to share misleading posts.
Read More: Zuckerberg nixes ‘politically biased’ factchecking
Despite its ambitious scope, the program faced challenges. A 2023 study involving 33,000 participants revealed that while fact-checking improved recognition of misinformation, the effect was modest, boosting accuracy by only 5-10%. Nevertheless, misinformation experts view the program as an essential counterbalance in a chaotic information ecosystem.
Global Implications and Warnings
The International Fact-Checking Network, a coalition of organizations like AFP, warned of “real-world harm” if Meta expands its policy shift beyond the United States. Countries vulnerable to misinformation-fueled political instability, mob violence, and election interference—such as Brazil and Australia—could face severe consequences.
In Brazil, where misinformation has historically undermined democracy, the government criticized Meta’s decision as “bad for democracy.” Australia called it “a damaging development” that could erode trust in social media.
Political Motivations and Conservative Embrace
Meta’s policy overhaul comes on the heels of Trump’s impending return to office, prompting accusations of political pandering. Trump has long criticized Meta for perceived liberal bias and previously threatened retaliation against Zuckerberg. In recent months, Zuckerberg met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, donated $1 million to his inauguration, and added Trump ally Dana White to Meta’s board.
These moves coincide with other politically charged decisions, including relocating Meta’s content moderation teams from California to Texas and appointing Joel Kaplan, a former Republican adviser, as head of global policy.
For conservatives, this shift validates longstanding claims that fact-checking initiatives disproportionately target right-leaning content. A 2019 Pew poll found that 70% of Republicans believed fact-checkers favored one side, compared to just 29% of Democrats.
The End of Moderation or a New Chapter?
Experts warn that scrapping the fact-checking initiative could deepen mistrust and chaos on Meta’s platforms. Critics argue that community-driven moderation, such as Meta’s proposed “community notes” system, cannot replace professional fact-checking.
“This is a capitulation to political winds,” said Renee DiResta of Georgetown University. Others, like Kate Starbird of the University of Washington, emphasized that “working the refs works,” noting how political pressure has dismantled tech platforms’ transparency efforts.
Read More: WhatsApp lets users forward messages directly to Meta AI
While Zuckerberg frames this pivot as a restoration of free expression, researchers caution that it risks amplifying harmful misinformation, undermining democracy, and eroding trust in digital spaces. The question now is whether Meta’s gamble will pay off—or backfire on a global scale.