Meta Ends U.S. Fact-Checking, Blames Journalists for Erosion of Trust
In a controversial move, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the termination of the company’s fact-checking program in the United States, accusing fact-checkers of censorship and blaming them for diminishing public trust. This decision marks a significant shift in Meta’s approach to combating misinformation, raising concerns about the proliferation of false and misleading content on its platforms, Facebook and Instagram. Ironically, Zuckerberg omits the fact that the very program he now condemns was established in response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and allegations of Russian interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The program was intended to rebuild public trust, a goal Zuckerberg now claims has been undermined by the fact-checkers themselves.
For journalists who have collaborated with Meta as fact-checkers, this decision comes as no surprise. Zuckerberg’s August 2024 letter to Congressman Jim Jordan, expressing regret for succumbing to alleged pressure from the Biden administration to censor content during the pandemic, foreshadowed this shift. While Zuckerberg did not specify the censored content, fact-checkers recall focusing on debunking dangerous misinformation, such as claims that bleach could cure COVID-19 or that vaccines caused infertility. This early indication of Zuckerberg’s changing stance, coupled with the gradual weakening of internal fact-checking tools, signaled a growing reluctance within Meta to actively combat misinformation.
The deterioration of Meta’s internal tools became evident over time. Initially, fact-checkers had access to robust search tools that allowed them to track the spread of disinformation, often intertwined with hate speech. However, by 2022, these tools were significantly diminished, primarily returning results for innocuous content like hair loss products and dietary supplements. This deliberate weakening hampered fact-checking efforts, suggesting a shift in Meta’s priorities. Furthermore, the subsequent shutdown of CrowdTangle, an invaluable external monitoring tool used by fact-checkers, journalists, and researchers, further restricted the ability to track and analyze online trends and misinformation campaigns.
Zuckerberg’s characterization of fact-checking as "censorship" misrepresents the work of Meta’s verification partners. Organizations like PolitiFact, Chequeado, AFP, and others do not remove content; they apply warning labels to posts containing false or misleading information, thereby limiting their viral spread. The final decision regarding account suspension or deletion rests with Meta. Fact-checkers simply provide context and analysis, leaving the ultimate action to the platform itself. While the Third-Party Fact-Checking Program was not flawless – with complexities in the appeals process and limitations regarding the verification of statements made by political figures – it represented a genuine effort to address the pervasive issue of online misinformation.
Meta’s decision to abandon fact-checking aligns with a broader trend of prioritizing "free speech" over content moderation, mirroring Elon Musk’s approach with X (formerly Twitter) and its community notes feature. This move, coupled with Zuckerberg’s announcement to lift restrictions on sensitive topics like immigration and gender, raises concerns about the potential for increased hate speech and the spread of harmful misinformation. This abandonment of fact-checking effectively legitimizes disinformation as an acceptable part of Meta’s business model, particularly as the U.S. approaches an election cycle where misinformation is likely to play a significant role.
The implications of Meta’s decision extend beyond the U.S. and present a challenge to the fact-checking profession. As Meta expands this policy globally, fact-checkers will need to re-evaluate their reliance on Big Tech platforms. The increasing manipulation of the "free speech" argument to prioritize profits and political influence underscores the need for alternative strategies to combat misinformation and hold social media platforms accountable for the content they host. This situation presents an opportunity for the fact-checking community to develop more independent and resilient approaches to their crucial work.