Meta Under Fire for Alleged Censorship and Removal of Fact-Checkers
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is facing mounting criticism following reports of censorship of Democratic-related content and the controversial decision to abandon independent fact-checkers on its platforms. The move, which will replace professional fact-checking with a user-driven "community notes" system, has sparked intense debate over the company's evolving stance on content moderation, political neutrality, and the potential spread of misinformation.
Meta’s Shift to Community Notes: A Radical Overhaul
In a video statement released alongside a blog post, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the decision to phase out independent fact-checkers in favour of a new approach inspired by Elon Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter). According to Zuckerberg, the company's previous reliance on third-party moderation was “too politically biased”, and he argued that it was time to prioritise “free expression” once again.
Meta’s current fact-checking system, introduced in 2016 in response to the proliferation of fake news during the U.S. presidential election, involved third-party organisations assessing potentially misleading content. Posts flagged as false were labelled accordingly, with reduced visibility in users' feeds to limit their reach.
Under the new community notes system, which will first launch in the U.S., users will collaboratively add context and clarifications to posts. The system, modelled on X’s controversial approach, relies on people of varying political perspectives agreeing on factual information, rather than external expert verification.
Political Pressure and Accusations of Bias
The timing of Meta’s announcement has intensified speculation that the move is aimed at improving relations with the incoming Trump administration. Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies have long accused Meta of suppressing conservative voices through its fact-checking policies, which they claim disproportionately target right-wing content.
Following the policy change, Trump praised Zuckerberg’s decision, stating that Meta had “come a long way” in addressing concerns over free speech. However, critics argue that the move is a calculated attempt to align with Trump's administration and avoid potential regulatory scrutiny from a Republican-led government.
Censorship Allegations: Suppressed Democratic Content
In addition to the fact-checking overhaul, Meta is also under scrutiny for allegations of suppressing Democratic-related search terms on Instagram. Users attempting to search for terms such as "Democrats" have encountered warnings stating that "results for the term you searched for may contain sensitive content."
According to reports from the BBC and Mashable, searches for Democratic-related terms return limited or hidden results, while similar searches for Republican-related terms do not face the same restrictions.
Social media analyst Matt Navarra commented on the issue, noting that it could have a profound impact on public perception.
Despite this clarification, critics remain sceptical, with some arguing that Meta’s moderation policies disproportionately affect left-leaning content while allowing right-leaning content more visibility.
Fact-Checking Organisations React with Dismay
Meta’s decision to remove independent fact-checkers has provoked a strong reaction from organisations dedicated to combating misinformation.
Chris Morris, CEO of the fact-checking group Full Fact, described the move as a “disappointing and backwards step” that risks undermining years of progress in fighting misinformation online.
"Fact-checking is not about bias; it’s about holding power to account. Removing independent oversight increases the likelihood of harmful falsehoods spreading unchecked," Morris said.
Meta’s Long-Standing Challenges with Content Moderation
Meta’s relationship with content moderation has been turbulent, with the company facing repeated accusations of political bias from both sides of the spectrum. Critics argue that the platform's moderation policies have often been inconsistent, with some posts being wrongly flagged while harmful misinformation spreads rapidly.
The company has previously found itself at the centre of controversies, including allegations of enabling disinformation campaigns during elections, failing to combat hate speech, and inadvertently promoting harmful content related to self-harm and extremism.
Meta maintains that its moderation policies have always been aimed at balancing free speech with the need to maintain a safe and accurate information environment. However, the recent policy shifts suggest a significant departure from its previous approach, raising concerns about the platform's future direction.
Related: Meta Sparks Controversy with Workforce Cuts and Policy Changes
Related: Meta’s Content Moderation Overhaul: A Bold Move with Broad Implications
Potential Regulatory Implications
Meta’s decision to abandon independent fact-checking also places the company at odds with growing regulatory scrutiny in Europe and the UK. Under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Bill, tech giants are required to take greater responsibility for curbing misinformation and harmful content on their platforms.
European regulators have already warned that Meta's new approach could potentially violate compliance requirements, leading to steep penalties if harmful content is allowed to proliferate.
In contrast, in the U.S., the platform may find more political support under the Trump administration, which has consistently called for reduced regulation of social media platforms in favour of free speech protections.
What This Means for Users
For everyday users, Meta’s shift away from fact-checking could mean:
- Increased exposure to misinformation, as community notes may lack the rigour of professional verification.
- Greater polarisation, with fact-checking now left to potentially partisan communities rather than impartial experts.
- A shift in content visibility, as controversial or misleading posts may no longer face as many restrictions.
While some users welcome the focus on free speech, others worry that the platform could become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and harmful content.
A New Era for Meta?
Meta's decision to remove independent fact-checkers and adopt a community-driven approach signals a fundamental shift in its content moderation strategy. While the move aligns with a growing push for less interventionist policies, it has raised alarms among experts who fear it could lead to a surge in misinformation, political manipulation, and reduced public trust.
As Meta continues to navigate these challenges, the world will be closely watching how these changes impact the spread of information, regulatory responses, and the platform's relationship with political stakeholders.
