META’s announcement on Tuesday that it will end its third-party fact-checking programme and transition to a user-driven Community Notes system has drawn mixed reactions from experts in the misinformation and disinformation fields globally.
The announcement made by Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, in a statement on January 7, 2025, said the social media company will end its fact-checking programme with independent third parties starting with those in the United States of America (USA).
It also accused fact-checkers of having their own biases, noting that too much content ended up being fact-checked as a result – thus, its reason for deciding to end the programme.
Instead, it will pivot to a Community Notes model that uses crowdsourced fact-checking contributions from users, part of the statement reads.
While the company argued that the new approach will empower users to contribute context and fight misinformation, critics express concern over the reliability and accuracy of crowdsourced fact-checking.
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) director, Angie Holan, in a statement on X expressed concerns that this decision would negatively impact social media users seeking accurate and reliable information to make informed decisions in their daily lives and interactions with others.
She emphasized that fact-checking has never involved censoring or removing posts but has instead provided additional information and context to controversial claims, while also debunking hoaxes and conspiracy theories.
“The fact-checkers used by Meta follow a Code of Principles requiring nonpartisanship and transparency. It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters.
“Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction,” Holan said.
Similarly, Tijana Cvjetićanin, a member of the IFCN advisory board, emphasized that this is the first time the fact-checking community has heard from Meta regarding any alleged issues with the objectivity and success of the programme.
“This decision was clearly not a result of actual issues with the programme, but of political pressures from the incoming Trump administration. Many of the key figures from Donald Trump’s orbit have actively supported the false narrative about fact-checking as political censorship,” she said.
Lois Ugbede, Assistant Editor at Dubawa, a West African independent fact-checking platform, acknowledged the potential impact of the change but stressed the importance of media literacy.
“Seeing this transition is shifting the power of gatekeepers or safeguards to app users, the best we can do is to ensure that the populace is media literate to make informed decisions and contributions to community notes.
“This way, we will have more objective and not subjective notes. We (fact-checkers) need to keep doing our work better and faster and also make it a point of duty to contribute to the community notes,” Ugbede stated.
Also reacting, Ross Burley, Co-founder of the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR), warned that the move could amplify harmful narratives.
“While efforts to protect free expression are vital, removing fact-checking without a credible alternative risks opening the floodgates to more harmful narratives. Fighting disinformation does not need to come at the cost of free speech.
“Platforms can and should strike a balance between free speech and public safety – this move, however, seems more about political appeasement than smart policy,” Burley opined.
In addition, Rodriguez Katsuva, Co-founder of Congo Check, criticized the timing of the decision, particularly as deepfakes become more realistic. He expressed concern over increased disinformation and hate speech, especially in Africa.
The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) in a statement also responded to Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that fact-checkers were politically biased, asserting that fact-checkers uphold the highest journalistic standards of impartiality, transparency, integrity, and accountability.
“Linking fact-checking with censorship is especially harmful as such false claims are already one of the driving forces behind harassment and attacks on fact-checkers. Furthering these claims can only exacerbate an already dire issue affecting fact-checkers across the world,” the EFCSN stated.
The Editorial Director of Fasocheck, Ange Levi Jordan Méda, noted that the shift to a community-driven fact-checking system on Meta platforms could harm credibility, as it is difficult to determine the quality of those evaluating content on Meta platforms including Facebook and Instagram.
“The necessary safeguards depend closely on Meta‘s willingness to take action. The most sensible approach would be for Meta to continue collaborating with fact-checking organisations.
“If this is not the case, the platform should rely on journalists or profiles that commit to maintaining objectivity in content rating, with the risk of banning or suspension for non-compliance. Journalists should engage with these communities to provide balance,” Méda pointed out.
While Meta’s Oversight Board, led by Nick Clegg, plans to review the implications of these changes, the board remains committed to balancing free speech with public safety.
Kaplan had earlier in the announcement, explained the shift, noting that the third-party fact-checking programme had become too complex with over-enforced rules. He explained further that the goal is now to allow for greater freedom of expression, with a focus on addressing high-severity violations like terrorism, child exploitation, and drug-related issues.
But Zuckerberg, in a video accompanying the statement, admitted that the changes were influenced by political events, including Donald Trump’s presidential election win. “Recent elections seem to mark a cultural turning point toward once again emphasizing free speech,” Zuckerberg said.
