Meta ends fact-checking on Facebook, Instagram, & Threads

by | Jan 13, 2025 | E-commerce News

Meta is ending fact-checking on its platforms, and the world is freaking out as if fact-checking actually worked. 

Mark Zuckerberg even admits that it was a flawed system. He said: 

“I’m counting on these changes actually making our platforms better. I think Community Notes will be more effective than fact-checkers, reducing the number of people whose accounts get mistakenly banned is good, people want to be able to discuss civic topics and make arguments that are in the mainstream of political discourse, etc. Some people may leave our platforms for virtue signaling, but I think the vast majority and many new users will find that these changes make the products better.”

The “Community Notes” system he mentioned will roll out in the US over the coming months, with plans to refine it throughout the year.

Meta has no immediate plans to end or modify its fact-checking program in the European Union, where stricter regulations like the Digital Services Act require platforms to combat illegal content and misinformation.

Zuckerberg later added about the rationale behind the change: 

“We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship. It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression.”

I'm in favor of this change. Social media fact-checking was an absurd idea that gained traction during the 2016 US election, Brexit, and the pandemic as a means to classify content as “misinformation” before it even had time to be proven right or wrong, or even be properly discussed. The idea that a social network can effectively fact-check more than 5 billion posts and comments each day using algorithms and underpaid fact-checkers from Pakistan, Argentina, and Brazil was at best, silly, and at worst, a falsehood designed to placate the previous cultural and political climates. It's simply not possible.

Ian Bogost of The Atlantic said it well

“The effort Facebook attempted under the name fact-checking was doomed. You can’t nitpick every post from every random person, every hobby website, every brand, school, restaurant, militia lunatic, aunt, or dogwalker as if they were all the same. Along the way, Facebook’s effort also tarnished the idea that fact-checking could be something more. The platform’s mass deployment of surface-level checks gave the sense that sorting facts from falsehoods is not a subtle art but a simple and repeating task, one that can be algorithmically applied to any content. The profession of journalism, which has done a terrible job of explaining its work to the public, bears some responsibility for allowing—even encouraging—this false impression to circulate. But Facebook was the king of ersatz checking. Good riddance.”

One thing I've always enjoyed about using Reddit is that the cream rises to the top in regards to accurate information. As soon as there's an incorrect statement made, the Reddit community dives into action and pushes the comment correcting the inaccuracy to the top of the post. And when that same incorrect statement is made on another subreddit via a different post, you can rest assured someone is going to link to the comment on the original post calling out the misinformation. While it's not perfect, the system works quite well in my opinion. 

Plus, let's not forget that Meta isn't getting rid of its Community Guidelines. Just because fact-checking is gone doesn't mean you can't all of the sudden spout racism and hate speech on the network. That'll still likely get you banned. (Although there is certainly reasonable debate in certain communities about what's considered hate speech.) The difference now is that you won't get banned for having conversations or debates that are within Meta's Community Guidelines, which was happening before.

Not everyone agrees with me…

  • The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, criticized Meta’s decision to end fact-checking programs, stressing the “real world consequences” of unregulated online spaces. Türk cited the immense power of social media to “fuel conflict, incite hate and threaten safety” as mandating regulation.
  • President Biden called the decision a “really shameful” choice and “contrary to American justice.”
  • Chi Onwurah, UK's Labour MP, said the decision to replace professional factcheckers with users policing the accuracy of posts was “concerning” and “quite frightening.”
  • Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmer said the decision was “very concerning” and “damaging for our democracy.”
  • Many Meta employees are also criticizing the decision, expressing concerns about potential increases in misinformation and harmful content, particularly on immigration and gender identity.

Most importantly… what do you think about the decision to end fact-checking? Hit reply and share your thoughts. 

Never miss important e-commerce news

Our weekly newsletter is read each week by 15,000+ e-commerce professionals.

Loading...