“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” wrote the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan four decades ago. His words resonate today, albeit in a vastly different media landscape, as Meta recently announced its decision to end its fact-checking program on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. This move has sparked debates about the consequences for the quest for truth in an era of rampant misinformation.
Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement, viewed by many in news verification circles as a nod to president-elect Donald Trump, carries significant implications. Trump’s first presidency famously introduced the term “alternative facts,” and this latest development seems to align with the normalization of subjective truths. In place of the traditional fact-checking initiative, Meta plans to implement a “community notes” system. Inspired by X (formerly Twitter), this system relies on platform users to identify and correct misinformation, effectively crowdsourcing truth.
The shift marks a departure from Meta’s previous commitment to fact-based verification, raising concerns about its potential to amplify loud, persuasive voices rather than promote accuracy. This approach resembles what critics call “he said-she said” journalism, where falsehoods are left to be challenged by opponents rather than fact-checked by journalists.
For the fact-checking industry, the moment represents a significant turning point. The industry, already grappling with challenges, faces diminished influence, especially as Trump prepares to begin his second term as president.
Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), expressed her apprehension about Meta’s decision. “In the short term, this is bad news for people who want to go on social media to find trustworthy and accurate information,” she explained. Established in 2015 with around 50 members, the IFCN has since grown to 170 members worldwide. However, many of these organizations may now face budget cuts or even closure due to Meta’s policy change.
Holan emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the long-term impact of this shift. “In the long term, I think it’s very uncertain what this will all mean,” she noted, pointing to the potential ramifications for both the fact-checking community and the broader ecosystem of online information.
Meta’s decision has rekindled debates about the role of social media platforms in regulating content and ensuring accuracy. As the fact-checking industry navigates these challenges, questions linger about whether the public can rely on community-driven solutions to distinguish truth from falsehood.