Meta is discontinuing the use of independent fact-checkers on Facebook and Instagram in favour of a system similar to X’s ‘community notes’.
This new approach lets users remark on the accuracy of posts, effectively crowdsourcing content moderation.
In a video shared alongside a blog post on Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that the move was necessary to address concerns about bias among third-party moderators. He described the change as a step toward “getting back to our roots around free expression.”
The announcement comes as Zuckerberg and other tech leaders work to strengthen ties with President-elect Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration. Trump and his allies have previously criticised Meta’s fact-checking efforts, accusing the company of censoring conservative voices.
During a news conference, Trump expressed approval for Zuckerberg’s decision, describing it as a significant shift. When asked if Zuckerberg’s action was influenced by past threats from Trump, the president-elect simply said, “Probably.”
Joel Kaplan, a key Republican figure and Meta’s new global affairs chief, acknowledged that while the use of independent fact-checkers was well-intentioned, it had often resulted in perceived censorship. He stated that the transition to community notes was part of a broader attempt to address these criticisms.
Unsurprisingly, the change has generated outrage from online hate speech campaigners, who see it as a politically motivated move to align with the incoming Trump administration.
Ava Lee, from the advocacy group Global Witness, said: “Zuckerberg’s announcement is a blatant attempt to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration – with harmful implications.” She argued that presenting the decision as a defence of free speech ignores the platform’s role in enabling hate and disinformation.
A shift inspired by X
Meta’s decision mirrors X’s introduction of community notes under Elon Musk’s leadership. In this system, users with different points of view collaborate to provide context or clarification to controversial posts. Meta plans to roll out the feature first in the US, but has stated that third-party fact-checkers would continue to be used in places such as the UK and the EU for now.
Concerns about self-harm and depressive content led Meta to clarify that there would be no changes to how it handles posts promoting suicide, self-injury, or eating disorders. However, fact-checking organisations like Full Fact, which collaborates with Meta in Europe, were quick to criticise the move. Full Fact’s chief executive, Chris Morris, called the decision “disappointing and a step backward,” warning of its global consequences.
Balancing risks
Zuckerberg acknowledged the risks in his announcement, admitting that the new system would involve trade-offs. “It means we’re going to catch less bad stuff,” he said. “But we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”
This approach contrasts sharply with regulations in the UK and Europe, where tech companies are being held to stricter accountability standards for the content on their platforms. For now, Meta’s shift away from moderation is limited to the US.
A changing political landscape
Meta’s blog post also framed the changes as an effort to reverse what it called “mission creep” in content rules. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” the company wrote.
These changes come as tech leaders prepare for Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Several CEOs, including Zuckerberg, have met with Trump in recent weeks, and Meta has reportedly given $1 million to his inauguration fund.
The appointment of Joel Kaplan, a prominent Republican, as Meta’s global affairs chief has been widely interpreted as a sign of the company’s shifting moderation policies and political priorities. Adding to this perception, Meta recently announced that Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and a close Trump ally, would join its board of directors.
Broader implications
Kate Klonick, a law professor at St. John’s University, stated that the changes reflect a larger trend in platform governance. “The private governance of speech on these platforms has increasingly become a point of politics,” she said. While firms were formerly focused on developing systems to address harassment, hate speech, and disinformation, Klonick sees a “radical swing back in the opposite direction” under leaders such as Zuckerberg and Musk.
Meta’s change is an important moment in the ongoing debate about the balance between free speech and accountability in the digital age. It remains to be seen whether this move will deliver the intended results or spark further controversies.
(Photo by Unsplash)
See also: Meta, TikTok face half-billion dollar legal challenge in Brazil over minor protection
Interested in hearing leading global brands discuss subjects like this in person? Find out more about Digital Marketing World Forum (#DMWF) Europe, London, North America, and Singapore.