Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that Meta will stop working with third-party fact-checking organisations has gone viral in seconds. The move is intended to reverse the company’s content moderation approach that, according to Zuck, has too often resulted in “censorship.”
Sporting a $900,000 watch, the Meta CEO said in the video: "After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth," Zuckerberg said. "But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US"
Predictably, the socials went ablaze and many experts and insiders spoke out.
And speaking of fact-checking, it was about time someone fact-checks Zuck's claims about fact-checkers being horrible, censorship-hungry beasts. Thank you, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, former director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Far from "censorship", in their 2024 EU DSA Systemic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Report, Meta proudly trumpets their work with independent fact-checkers, writing it "forms the basis to prevent the spread of large scale misinformation and disinformation" https://t.co/lVurGll7Hc
— Rasmus Kleis Nielsen (@rasmus_kleis) January 8, 2025
James Ball, political editor at The New European and former Guardian journalist, pointed out that it is not only about the end of fact-checking but also about the freedom to talk about topics that could harm vulnerable groups.
Among other things, it’s now okay to call lgbt users mentally ill on Facebook and Insta now – worldwide! The new rules explicitly say you can do that!
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) January 8, 2025
But because journalists are self-obsessed pretty much everywhere is leading on the fact checking thing. https://t.co/yYfYDmXW1V
Fact-checking organisation Full Fact also weighted in.
For Jonathan Heawood, executive editor of the Public Interest News Foundation, Zuck's announcement raised more questions than answers.
Journalist and content creator Sophia Smith Galer questioned why fact-checking is seen as a left-wing concept, when the data shows right-wing voters are more likely to share false or inaccurate information.
Watch on TikTok
Independent press regulator IMPRESS says Meta's decision is a result of ineffective UK and EU legislation.
Splice Media co-founder and CEO Alan Soon says that Meta's decision has now made an "impossible fight" to debunk misinformation even harder by allying with the Trump administration.
And we will just leave this here, courtesy of blogger Jason Kottke.
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
