Mark Zuckerberg ends fact-checking program, possibly as he tries to appease Donald Trump: Story in 5 points

Mark Zuckerberg has made a big decision to end the fact-checking program. The impact of this decision is wide-ranging, from how misinformation will be managed on platforms like Facebook and Instagram to the future of third-party fact-checking organisations that rely on Meta's support. Here is the full story in 5 points.

In Short

• Mark Zuckerberg ends Meta’s long-standing fact-checking program
• The move coincides with efforts to mend relations with Donald Trump
• This is a big blow to fact-checking organisations that rely on Meta’s support

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made a big decision to end the company’s long-standing fact-checking program, a move that has sparked debates across the tech and political verticals. This change comes at a crucial time, as Meta tries to balance free speech, content moderation, and political pressures, probably with the incoming US President, Donald Trump. The impact of this decision is wide-ranging, from how misinformation will be managed on platforms like Facebook and Instagram to the future of third-party fact-checking organisations that rely on Meta’s support. Here is the full story in 5 points.

Meta ends fact-checking program

Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program is a big shift in how the social media giant approaches content moderation. The program, once a key part of the company’s efforts to combat misinformation, had been in place for years. It partnered with third-party fact-checkers to verify content on Facebook and Instagram, flagging false information and reducing its spread. However, Zuckerberg has recently pointed to errors in the system and acknowledged that the company had perhaps gone too far in moderating content.

In a video statement, Zuckerberg asserted the need to return to Meta’s roots, which he described as prioritising free speech and less interference with user content. He noted that the platform would refocus on ensuring that user expression was not overly restricted, acknowledging that the fact-checking system had faced big criticism, especially from conservative circles, for being too aggressive in its censorship efforts.

Is Zuckerberg trying to appease Donald Trump?

The timing of Meta’s decision has led many to question whether it is politically motivated. It is being reported that the move coincides with efforts to mend relations with Trump, who has long been a critic of social media platforms for what he views as the suppression of conservative voices. Trump’s criticisms of Facebook and other platforms have centered on claims of censorship, and now that he is back in the political spotlight with another run for the White House, Meta’s decision could possibly be a strategic alignment with Trump’s views, likely to be in his good books.

Adding to this perception is Meta’s recent appointment of individuals with ties to Trump, such as Dana White, to its board. These moves suggest that the company is trying to avoid future conflicts with the Trump administration and align itself more closely with conservative ideologies, especially around free speech. Nearly two months ago, Zuckerberg had dinner with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club, during which they discussed Meta's plan to donate $1 million to Trump's inauguration committee. This gesture could also be Meta's efforts to repair ties with Trump, who was suspended from Meta platforms in 2021 and reinstated in 2023.

Meta takes a new approach: Community Notes

In place of its traditional fact-checking system, Meta will introduce a new system inspired by Elon Musk’s approach for X (formerly Twitter), called community notes. This system allows users to add context or debunk claims by attaching notes to posts. It is designed to provide a more decentralised approach to fact-checking, giving users more control over what is flagged and how it is explained.

While some have praised community notes for promoting different perspectives, others are skeptical about its effectiveness in addressing misinformation. Critics argue that without a central fact-checking authority, false information may still increase, and the system could be manipulated by bad actors to spread misinformation under the guise of context.

Meta’s new Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, has stated that the new system will be phased in over several months in 2025, with input from various political perspectives to reduce bias. However, the big question remains whether this approach will be enough to satisfy concerns about the spread of false information, particularly in an era where misinformation can easily go viral.

A blow to fact-checking organisations

Meta’s decision has blindsided many fact-checking organisations that were a key part of its Third-Party Fact-Checking Program. Groups like Lead Stories, which worked closely with Meta to verify content, expressed disappointment and uncertainty about the future. Alan Duke, Editor-in-Chief of Lead Stories, revealed that they had no prior notice of Meta’s plans to end the program, leaving them in a precarious position.

The move is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the global fact-checking community, many of whom relied heavily on Meta’s funding and platform partnerships to continue their work. A survey by the International Fact-Checking Network found that 64 per cent of global fact-checkers were part of Meta’s program, and its sudden end raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of these groups.

Political and regulatory challenges ahead for Meta?

Fact-checking has been a long-standing issue for Republicans, who view Meta's moderation policies as a form of censorship. With Trump re-entering the political scene, Republicans might reignite their criticism of platforms like Facebook for allegedly suppressing conservative views. Trump, in his next term, has indicated plans to challenge companies that endorse moderation, with his FTC pick, Andrew Ferguson, set to target firms accused of "facilitating censorship."

Zuckerberg says Meta’s latest decision will bring balance to public discourse. But, critics are suggesting that ending fact-checking could lead to a surge in viral misinformation. Alan Duke of Lead Stories believes fact-checking is vital for free speech, as it supports informed debate by verifying facts.