Global Issues‘The Closure of Meta’s US Fact-Checking Programme Is a Major Setback in the Fight Against Disinformation’
Jan 24 (IPS) - CIVICUS speaks with Olivia Sohr about the challenges of disinformation and the consequences of the closure of Meta’s fact-checking programme in the USA. Olivia is the Director of Impact and New Initiatives at Chequeado, an Argentine civil society organisation working since 2010 to improve the quality of public debate through fact-checking, combating disinformation, promoting access to information and open data.
In January 2025, Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, announced the suspension of its US data verification programme. Instead, the company will implement a system where users can report misleading content. The decision came as Meta prepared for the start of the new Trump presidency. Explaining the change, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company was trying to align itself with its core value of free speech. Meta also plans to move some of its content moderation operations from California to Texas, which it says is in response to concerns about potential regional bias.
What led to Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme?
While the exact details of the process that led to this decision are unknown, in his announcement Zuckerberg alluded to a ‘cultural shift’ that he said was cemented in the recent US election. He also expressed concern that the fact-checking system had contributed to what he saw as an environment of ‘excessive censorship’. As an alternative, Zuckerberg is proposing a community rating system to identify fake content.
This decision is a setback for information integrity around the world. Worryingly, Meta justifies its position by equating fact-checking journalism with censorship. Fact-checking is not censorship; it’s a tool that provides data and context to enable people to make informed decisions in an environment where disinformation is rife. Decisions like this increase opacity and hamper the work of those focused on combatting disinformation.
The role of fact-checkers in Meta is to investigate and label content that is found to be false or misleading. However, decisions about the visibility or reach of such content will be made solely by the platform, which has assured that it will only reduce exposure and add context, not remove or censor content.
How the community grading system will work has not yet been specified, but the prospects are not promising. Experience from other platforms suggests that these models tend to increase disinformation and the spread of other harmful content.
What are the challenges of fact-checking journalism?
Fact-checking is extremely challenging. While those pushing disinformation can quickly create and spread completely false content designed to manipulate emotions, fact-checkers must follow a rigorous and transparent process that is time-consuming. They must constantly adapt to new and increasingly sophisticated disinformation strategies and techniques, which are proliferating through the use of artificial intelligence.
Meta’s decision to end its US verification programme makes our task even more difficult. One of the key benefits of this programme is that it has allowed us to reach out directly to those who spread disinformation, alerting them with verified information and stopping the spread at the source. Losing this tool would be a major setback in the fight against disinformation.
What are the potential consequences of this change?
Meta’s policy change could significantly weaken the information ecosystem, making it easier for disinformation and other harmful content to reach a wider audience. For Chequeado, this means we will have to step up our efforts to counter disinformation, within the platform and in other spaces.
In this scenario, verification journalism is essential, but it will be necessary to complement this work with media literacy initiatives, the promotion of critical thinking, the implementation of technological tools to streamline the work and research to identify patterns of disinformation and the vulnerability of different groups to fake news.
GET IN TOUCH
SEE ALSO
BRAZIL: ‘The focus should be on holding social media companies accountable, not punishing individual users’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Iná Jost 01.Oct.2024
‘It’s easier and cheaper than ever to spread disinformation on a massive scale’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Imran Ahmed 21.Sep.2024
UK: ‘Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for far-right ideologies’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Kulvinder Nagre 19.Aug.2024
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2025) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service