Tech giant Meta’s surprise decision to terminate its US fact-checking program has ignited widespread criticism, with experts warning it could fuel the spread of disinformation.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the move on Tuesday, stating the company would “get rid” of its third-party fact-checkers in the United States.
Analysts have described the policy shift as a bid to appease President-elect Donald Trump and his administration.
Ross Burley, co-founder of the Centre for Information Resilience, called the decision a “major step back” for combating harmful content.
“Disinformation and harmful narratives are evolving faster than ever, and removing fact-checkers without a credible alternative opens the floodgates for falsehoods,” Burley said.
Instead of professional fact-checking, Meta plans to rely on “Community Notes,” a crowd-sourced moderation tool similar to one used by X (formerly Twitter).
However, critics, including researchers and academics, have questioned its effectiveness and potential for partisan misuse.
Michael Wagner of the University of Wisconsin-Madison likened the move to outsourcing a vital responsibility.
“Asking untrained users to combat misinformation on a multi-billion dollar platform is an abdication of social responsibility,” he said.
The announcement poses a financial blow to US-based fact-checking organizations, many of which depend on Meta’s funding.
According to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Meta’s program has been a primary revenue source for fact-checkers worldwide.
Angie Holan, director of IFCN, emphasized the broader societal impact.
“This decision undermines users seeking reliable information and reflects external political pressure from the new administration,” she said.
Alexios Mantzarlis, director of Cornell Tech’s Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative, criticized the decision as politically motivated.
“Community Notes users are often driven by partisan motives, targeting political opponents rather than promoting accuracy,” Mantzarlis explained.
The move has reignited debates over the role of fact-checking in free speech.
PolitiFact’s executive director, Aaron Sharockman, argued that fact-checking does not suppress speech but adds context.
“If Meta regrets creating tools perceived as censorship, it should look inward,” Sharockman said.
Meta’s fact-checking program, launched in 2016, downgraded false content in news feeds and provided explanatory articles to users attempting to share flagged posts.
While critics acknowledged its imperfections, many regarded it as a vital tool against disinformation.
“This choice reflects politics, not policy,” Mantzarlis said, underscoring the long-term consequences of Meta’s decision.
As Meta phases out its fact-checking program, concerns about the future of content moderation and disinformation continue to grow, raising questions about the balance between free expression and the need for accurate information.