Meta criticised over ‘chilling’ content moderation changes

Meta’s decision to scrap its third-party fact-checking and to loosen content moderation has been labelled “chilling” and could have “dire consequences” for online safety, experts and campaigners have said.

The parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads said it was ending third-party fact-checking on posts in the US and would instead switch to an X-style Community Notes system where users flag content as false or misleading.

Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg said the decision was about “restoring free expression” on its platforms and “reducing mistakes” it said automated content moderation systems were making, with Meta saying it believed it was amounting to censorship in some cases, accusing some fact-checkers of being influenced by their own biases.

But independent, UK fact-checking charity Full Fact said the decision was likely to help misinformation more easily spread online as a result.

Chilling

Chris Morris, chief executive of Full Fact, said: “Meta’s decision to end its partnership with fact checkers in the US is disappointing and a backwards step that risks a chilling effect around the world.

“From safeguarding elections to protecting public health to dissipating potential unrest on the streets, fact checkers are first responders in the information environment.

“Our specialists are trained to work in a way that promotes credible evidence and prioritises tackling harmful information – we believe the public has a right to access our expertise.

“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.

“Like Meta, fact checkers are committed to promoting free speech based on good information without resorting to censorship. But locking fact checkers out of the conversation won’t help society to turn the tide on rapidly rising misinformation.

“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.”

Social media expert Matt Navarra said Meta’s decision was a “smart move” by Mr Zuckerberg in the face of the “current political environment in the US” and the return to the White House of Donald Trump, but said there were obvious downsides around “misleading or harmful content spreading more easily”.

‘Hands-off’

“Zuckerberg says it’s a shift that will dramatically reduce censorship and lead to more political content being recommended in feeds – it feels to me like Meta is taking a hands-off approach and it’s going to rely on its users to help police content,” Mr Navarra told the PA news agency.

“I think the timing of this decision is significant, because Zuckerberg points directly to the return of Donald Trump to the White House as a major influence, where he says the November elections felt like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritising speech.

“I think this all hints that his move is as much political as it is operational. To me, it’s a clear sign that Meta is leaning into a more conservative, hands-off content strategy.

“For users, this means that their feeds are going to get more raw and unfiltered – it’s lifting restrictions on sensitive topics that have been heavily moderated in the past – and Zuckerberg is framing this as a win for open dialogue because it means more people will share their beliefs and experiences.

“But the downside is obvious – misleading or harmful content would spread more easily without professional oversight, which could lead to a wild west of competing opinions and contested truths.”

Mr Navarra added that he thought Meta’s approach could also be part of broader efforts from tech firms pushing back against international regulation.

Regulation

Countries including the UK and other regions such as the EU have begun introducing regulations for social media platforms for the first time, and new competition laws are also looking to curb the power of big US tech firms.

“I think Zuckerberg isn’t shy about the political motivations behind the move, because in his statement he criticises the governments outside the US, including in Europe, saying Europe is institutionalising censorship – this language signals a broader fight against international regulation,” Mr Navarra said.

“So I think by partnering with Trump’s administration, Meta positions itself as a champion of free speech, but also as a company willing to push back against governments looking to curb misinformation.

“I think this is a gamble, but I think he sees it as a necessary thing to align with the current political climate – because he says ‘we’ll be able to dramatically reduce censorship, but we’ll also catch less bad stuff’ – so he’s fully aware of the potential fallout.”