Meta’s decision to drop its third-party fact-checking operation across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, opting for a user-led approach similar to X’s Community Notes, is causing a fierce debate if the move was influenced by political pressure.
Earlier today Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive, shared in a video that the shift aims to “get back to our roots” by scaling down automated removals and providing more context instead of imposing extensive takedowns.
Meta yesterday also announced that UFC CEO Dana White, an outspoken Trump-advocate, will join the company’s board of directors. This has led to speculations that Zuckerberg’s decision about dropping fact-checking could be influenced by fear the incoming Trump-administration might take steps against his corporate interests. Mark Zuckerberg had arranged a dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after the election in November.
Interesting timing. Four years after censoring a sitting president, Zuck suddenly announces these reforms—right after the same man he banned from his platform gets re-elected by the people. What about the thousands who were censored and humiliated for speaking truth to power?… https://t.co/3rhnMxVSS5
— Nicole Shanahan (@NicoleShanahan) January 7, 2025
Partners Caught Off Guard
Organizations working as Meta’s fact-checking allies say they were “blindsided” by Meta’s move to stop fact-checking. “We heard the news just like everyone else […] No advance notice,” Alan Duke, cofounder of Lead Stories told Wired.
The fact checking website says on its blog, they were “surprised and disappointed to first learn through media reports and a press release about the end of the Meta Third-Party Fact-Checking Partnership of which Lead Stories has been a part since 2019.”
Some outlets relied heavily on revenue from Meta’s projects, and there is concern about sustaining journalist positions originally dedicated to spotting false or misleading content on Meta’s platforms.
Joel Kaplan, Meta’s global affairs official, argued in the company’s official announcement that previous moderation efforts had “made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement” and that Meta will no longer use automated warnings that hide questionable posts behind large notices, which will be replaced by smaller labels with optional user-provided context.
Political Signals and Regulatory Pressure
Meta’s shift comes ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s new term. The company gave an early tip-off to Trump’s team regarding its policy changes, according to an individual with direct knowledge of the discussions. Trump himself praised the move.
“I watched their news conference, and I thought it was a very good news conference. I think they’ve, honestly, I think they’ve come a long way. Meta. Facebook. I think they’ve come a long way. I watched it, the man was very impressive,” Trump said in response to a question from CNN’s Steve Contorno at Mar-a-Lago.
Brendan Carr, the incoming head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), previously openly questioned the company’s “censorship cartel” in letters to major tech companies, suggesting that federal scrutiny could involve Section 230. Section 230, a provision in U.S. law, protects online platforms from certain legal liabilities but requires they act “in good faith.”
More Reactions
Representatives from Check Your Fact, a group that started partnering with Meta in 2019, also reported hearing about the changes at the same time as the public. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University called the announcement “a stark reminder that many of the biggest platforms we use to communicate about issues of public importance are owned by billionaires who are not accountable to us.”
The Institute reiterated the need for stronger protections for researchers studying large social networks.
Alan Duke from Lead Stories underscored that his team follows strict journalistic standards and denies accusations of being politically skewed. “Let me fact-check that. Lead Stories follows the highest standards of journalism and ethics required by the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles,” Duke said, responding to Zuckerberg’s remark that fact-checkers had grown “too politically biased”.
Free speech group FIRE, on the other side, applauded Meta’s decision, saying “Meta is giving its users what they want — a social media platform that doesn’t suppress political content or use top-down fact-checkers. These changes will hopefully result in less arbitrary moderation decisions and freer speech on Meta’s platforms.”
Meta’s announcement today shows the marketplace of ideas in action. Its users want a social media platform that doesn’t suppress political content or use top-down fact-checkers.
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) January 7, 2025
The company concedes that its past moderation practices have introduced bias and haven’t worked,… pic.twitter.com/fZc5NJe9IV
Expanding User Input and Reduced Automation
In place of third-party reviewers, Meta’s new structure relies heavily on Community Notes, modeled after the feature on X. Elon Musk, who oversees X, welcomed the news on social media: “This is awesome,” he wrote, emphasizing that oversight belongs “in the hands of many” rather than a select group.
The existing Community Notes concept on X depends on contributions from individuals with a wide range of perspectives to highlight context and correct perceived misinformation.
Large-scale automated systems at Meta will continue to target major threats such as terrorism or child exploitation. However, less severe posts will remain unmoderated unless flagged by users. Immigration and gender-related content, which Zuckerberg described as being “out of touch with mainstream discourse” under previous rules, will now face fewer restrictions.
Shifting Operations and Future Steps
As part of the overhaul, Meta will relocate trust and safety personnel from California to Texas to “help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content,” according to Zuckerberg.
Some critics interpret this geographic shift as strategic alignment with conservative sentiment, given the ongoing discontent over alleged political favoritism in tech moderation.
Zuckerberg acknowledged the downsides of scaling back enforcement: “The reality is that this is a trade-off,” he said in his video, adding that “we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”
This wider margin for posts that may contain questionable details has sparked debate over how much inaccurate material might circulate. Meta’s leaders say they are betting on transparency measures and user engagement—through crowd-sourced notes—to maintain a balance.
Community Notes will roll out in the United States first, affecting all Meta-owned social platforms within the next few months. Third-party fact-checking, once lauded as an answer to the “fake news” problem that gained attention in 2016, now appears to be on the way out at Meta. Many of the departing partners are still looking for ways to keep their teams funded and continue independent investigations of online claims.
