On Jan. 7, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta is ending its “fact-checking” program on its social media platforms. The system of community notes written by platform users “decide[s] when posts are potentially misleading or need more context,” according to Meta’s website. In an online video, Zuckerberg said that “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram.” Some on social media fear the decision will allow for “the freedom of disinformation” and the valuing of “misinformation over democracy.” USA Today even released an article headlined “Why Meta went MAGA.”
I, however, remain cautiously optimistic about the announcement.
There are a few things to understand about this pivot away from professional fact-checking. Headlines like USA Today’s are not baseless, and some argue that Zuckerberg could be feeling the pressure from Donald Trump’s incoming administration. In Trump’s book “Save America,” he threatens Zuckerberg with spending “the rest of his life in prison” if he attempted to “cheat” in the 2024 election. In fact, many Republicans claim that Meta, led by Zuckerberg, meddled in the 2020 election, costing Trump reelection. Though, Zuckerberg more recently expressed concerns with the Biden administration for attempting to “censor” vaccine misinformation during the pandemic.
In his announcement video on Instagram, Zuckerberg addressed the concerns of individuals who feel as if they’ve been censored on social media. “We tried in good faith to address concerns [of online misinformation] without becoming the arbiters of truth, but the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S,” he stated.
Zuckerberg’s claim that fact-checkers have been too politically biased isn’t completely unfounded. According to data from the Harvard Misinformation Review of 150 misinformation experts, the vast majority of fact checkers in the study were on the left, including 42% who were considered “fairly left,” whereas only 5% are “slightly right.”
Certainly fact-checkers have a clear goal, which is to warn us about “misinformation” and filter through objectively false statements on these platforms. However, Zuckerberg’s claim is that these fact-checkers too often use their positions to convey their own political views and label political hyperboles as “harmful.”
I believe that a mechanism for fact-checking is important for social media, and misleading posts should be criticized. Yet, leaving it up to the platform itself to do so is dangerous and undermines the democratization of the platform. Social media platforms having unchecked authority over what constitutes truth has the potential to create a dangerous precedent, where corporate interests or biases may dictate the flow of information, in turn suppressing diverse and minority opinions and ultimately eroding trust of these public platforms.
It’s tempting to assume that Zuckerberg is merely attempting to pander to the right and Trump’s incoming administration. Even if true, the replacement of independent, professional fact-checkers with community notes — similar to X, which has received a fair bit of criticism — is not inherently a bad thing. Rather, it ensures that, as The Economist pointed out, “social media platforms are not in the business of defining truth.” Whether Meta’s system will work in the same way as X’s remains uncertain, but it is important to recognize the significant differences between each company’s audiences. While I am the first to admit that I wouldn’t like Instagram or Facebook to follow similar paths as X, X has a user base encompassing only 20% of Americans, according to the Pew Research Center. Meta’s Instagram, meanwhile, boasts nearly 50% of Americans as active users — highlighting Instagram’s broader reach and appeal, especially among younger people. This difference underscores the heightened responsibility Meta platforms like Instagram have in shaping political discourse in America.
Still, the move away from professional fact-checking raises important questions about how we can cultivate media literacy on social platforms and address misinformation before it takes hold as perceived fact in the political consciousness. While Zuckerberg acknowledges that harmful content may surface more frequently on Meta platforms under the new system, I remain optimistic that Americans have the agency to effectively navigate and filter through social media misinformation. Furthermore, I believe that tools in the hands of social media consumers like “community notes” are a strong way to further democratize these platforms.
It is not unreasonable to remain optimistic, as I am, about the future of political engagement on social media. Despite the challenges of misinformation, echo chambers and the increased polarization these platforms often foster, the potential for education, dialogue and activism still remains. Meta’s community notes may further protect this potential, while a politically biased fact-checking team could thwart it.
