Meta’s Decision to End Fact-Checking on Its Platforms Is Problematic

Do you trust everything that you read and see on social media? 

 

Have you been a victim of false information? 

 

From now on, the chances that you are one will become even higher. 

 

On January 7th 2025, social media company Meta announced that it will scrap third-party fact-checkers and ease discussions on sensitive topics. This decision was taken just days before Donald Trump’s inauguration as President of the United States on January 20. The owner of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, said that the re-election of Trump signalled a “cultural tipping point” towards free speech over moderation.

 

As a young journalist based in Bulgaria, I believe that this decision is going to have negative effects on my countrymen’s perceptions of their surroundings. My concern mainly comes from the fact that Bulgaria is ranked last in the EU in the Media Literacy Index for 2023. People cannot distinguish facts from false information and they believe the majority of content that is presented to them to be true.

 

Instead of experts who are paid to check information about its accuracy, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads will rely on community notes. These are already used in Elon Musk’s platform X and are based on users’ inputs only. 

 

The problem with this change is that people will not be as motivated to address posts that seem to present false information because of the lack of a monetary incentive. This means that the only stimulus individuals will have is their own willingness to contribute to fact-checking.

 

Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Meta himself, admitted the changes, designed to reduce the risk of censorship, meant it was "going to catch less bad stuff". By this he means that there will be less reports for false information on his platforms. An additional worrying statement is that research has shown that more than 90% of suggested community notes are never actually utilized. This displays the extent of the problem and the potential for an increased percentage of falsehoods on social media.

 

The efficiency of fact-checking will decrease because the average user is not a professional and their judgment may be based on personal preferences and biases. 

 

For example, if a person having certain beliefs sees a post sharing opposing views on their feed, they may report it as false information even though it is not such. This will mean that other users will not be able to receive the truth and will rather have false claims appear in their apps. Consequently, the consumers of content will be exposed to higher levels of misinformation which is not always easily distinguishable from facts. 

 

There have been claims that fact-checkers quieted down people with different ideas and opinions and were too conservative in their actions. According to Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, “Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, and it’s debunked hoax content and conspiracy theories.” I believe that this quote answers the critics mentioned above effectively.

 

Another declaration is that fact-checkers were not efficient enough because the modifications of content happened a long period of time after posts were reported. This meant that users were exposed to falsehoods before these were changed so as to present the truth. There is no evidence that community notes are achieving a higher rate of fact-checked posts in comparison to the experts. Additionally, the quality of professionals is always going to be better than the one of users who report posts at their own will.

 

Social media is a way for everyone to share their opinions and beliefs in a way that regards the truth and facts. From now on, only the first part of the statement above will be correct. People will be surrounded by more false information and their reality is likely to become distorted because of it.