Why is Meta ending fact-checking and what does it mean for users?

Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking programme is raising questions about the future of misinformation management on platforms like Facebook and Instagram . The move, announced by the company’s founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday, shifts responsibility for identifying and addressing false information from professional fact-checkers to a new crowdsourced system called Community Notes, sparking debate over that system's effectiveness. Meta says the move is aimed at promoting free expression and reducing accusations of bias in content moderation. "The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US," Mr Zuckerberg said. Notably, his announcement follows years of criticism directed at Meta for its failure to effectively address hate speech, disinformation, and other problematic content on Facebook and Instagram. But while Meta claims the change will boost open dialogue and ensure impartiality in content moderation, some industry experts have questioned its ability to effectively combat misinformation. They warned that relying on user-driven moderation could allow misinformation to go unchecked. Fact-checking company Full Fact, which has participated in Meta’s third-party fact-checking programme since January 2019, said the move was “disappointing and a backward step that risks a chilling effect around the world”. From safeguarding elections to protecting public health and dissipating potential unrest on the streets, fact-checkers are first responders in the information environment, Chris Morris, chief executive of Full Fact, said. “We absolutely refute Meta's charge of bias – we are strictly impartial, fact-check claims from all political stripes with equal rigour and hold those in power to account through our commitment to truth,” Mr Morris said. While working with Meta, Full Fact has checked images, videos and articles on Meta platforms and received income depending on the amount of fact-checking. It discloses all funding it receives exceeding £5,000 ($6,177) and claims it is editorially independent with no interference from funders. The new community notes system relies on user-driven contributions to address misinformation. It allows platform users to add context or corrections to potentially misleading posts. However, for a note to appear publicly, contributors with diverse viewpoints must agree on its accuracy. This approach ensures that the added information represents a consensus and avoids bias towards one-sided perspectives, Meta said. The Elon Musk-owned X, previously called Twitter, launched its Community Notes feature, originally called Birdwatch, in January 2021 for content moderation. The move could support the California-based company's efforts to move away from allegations of censorship while balancing free speech with accountability. Taylor Barkley, director of public policy at the Washington-based Abundance Institute, said the change represents “solid moves” by Meta. “During our year of tracking AI-generated election material, it was clear that a Community Notes system worked well at moderating content … it won't be perfect, but adapting new systems to more speech is the right move," he said. Community notes are more trusted by users than professional fact-checkers providing misinformation labels, said John Katsos, a professor at the American University of Sharjah. “Academic research has shown the trust persists regardless of the user’s political persuasion. User trust is the key currency for social media platforms, so this is a logical step by Meta, ” Mr Katsos told The National . “One potential problem is that stories from volatile regions are likely to get community notes put on them that are disproportionately from people with no real local knowledge of the setting, giving more control over the narrative to a much smaller number of users.” However, some industry experts argued that by moving the responsibility for accuracy to its users, Meta has raised concerns about the system's effectiveness, speed and ability to tackle harmful content. Without professional oversight, the company is relying on crowd consensus to combat misinformation, a strategy that may prove inadequate against the rapid spread of fake stories and propaganda. Fact-checking, when done well, is a professional activity with standards, accountability and set procedures, but it has been too dependent on big-tech funding, experts say. “This vulnerability is exposed with Meta’s irresponsible shutdown of its fact-checking support programmes,” said Claes de Vreese, professor of artificial intelligence and society at the University of Amsterdam. “Fact-checking is an important part of the information ecosystem. Removing it from the Meta universe is a step in the wrong direction and does not contribute to being compliant with EU regulations.” This decision could also spark reactions from other regions, such as Europe. “Misinformation doesn’t respect borders, so European fact-checkers will be closely examining this development to understand what it means for our shared information environment,” Mr Morris said. Mr Vreese stressed that Community Notes possesses distinct qualities, but lacks the core features that make fact-checking effective and reliable. Meta has also announced plans to relocate its content-review teams from California to Texas, a move it claimed will bring more diverse perspectives to its moderation policies. However, the company did not disclose the number of employees it will move to Texas. Meta’s relationship with Texas has been strained – it was forced to pay a $1.4 billion fine last July to settle a lawsuit over the collection of users' biometric data in the state. Meta will not be the first such company to move to Texas. In July, Mr Musk announced plans to relocate X's headquarters from San Francisco to Texas. In December 2020, Oracle also announced the relocation of its headquarters from Redwood City, California, to Austin, Texas.

Why is Meta ending fact-checking and what does it mean for users?

Company claims change will promote free expression and address concerns about bias in content moderation