Zuckerberg panders to Trump by scrapping Meta fact-checkers
“Time to get back to our roots around free expression”, declared Mark Zuckerberg today as he announced that Meta is getting rid of independent fact-checkers, in a bold move that will appease the incoming US President.
“Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” said Zuckerberg in a video posted online, as he laid out the sweeping set of changes - so far only confirmed for the US - over how posts, videos and other content is moderated on Instagram, Facebook and Threads.
Aside from scrapping Meta’s third-party fact-checking programme - launched in 2016 amid anger that Zuckerberg was allowing misinformation and hate speech to run rife on his platforms - the company is also getting rid of content restrictions on contentious topics, such as immigration and gender identity, and undoing changes that had restricted the amount of political content users see in their feeds. Zuckerberg insisted today that Meta would continue to aggressively moderate content related to drugs, terrorism and child exploitation.
Who will replace these independent fact-checkers? Zuckerberg is following in the footsteps of fellow tech tycoon Elon Musk who, after acquiring X in 2022, dismantled the company’s fact-checking teams and instead made user-generated context labels called “community notes” the platform’s only method of correcting false claims. Unsurprisingly, Musk welcomed today’s switch-up. "This is cool," he posted on X.
Zuckerberg admitted the changes are “a tradeoff” and will result in more harmful content appearing on Meta platforms. “It means that we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”
Donald Trump’s imminent return to the Oval Office is crucial context for understanding this sweeping set of policy changes. Something the Meta CEO made no secret of himself: “The recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritising speech," he said today.
The concept of entirely unbiased fact-checking is undeniably a flawed one. The reality is that many posts will fall into a grey area, neither entirely true nor false. Meaning fact-checkers rely on judgement calls. And, while Meta’s independent partners insist they check claims from left and right equally, many conservatives have long protested that their voices are disproportionately restricted.
This censorship of right-wing voices has seen Trump hurl elaborate insults at Zuckerberg, once threatening to send him to prison for "the rest of his life." As recently as March 2024, Trump labelled Facebook "an enemy of the people".
Zuckerberg now appears desperate to repair relations with the President elect before he takes office later this month.
He dined with Trump at his Florida estate in November and has replaced Sir Nick Clegg, Meta’s outgoing head of global affairs, with Joel Kaplan, a prominent Republican. And, alongside other tech companies, Meta has donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.
That Meta is facing an antitrust trial in April - over claims that it bought Instagram and WhatsApp to crush emerging competition in social media - will make Zuckerberg all the keener to ensure he’s not at loggerheads with the Trump administration too.
Campaigners against online hate speech have unsurprisingly reacted to Meta’s big policy change with anger and dismay, accusing Zuckerberg of political pandering.
The Real Facebook Oversight Board — an outside accountability organisation, comprised of academics, lawyers and civil rights advocates including early Facebook investor Roger McNamee — accused Meta of going “full MAGA.”
Whatever one’s view on the content moderation changes, the announcement is a striking example that even the most powerful tech companies do still care about keeping government on side, and it demonstrates the hold Trump has over Meta’s boss. Perhaps fitting then that the piece-to-camera in which Zuckerberg announced his big policy upheaval distinctly resembles a hostage video.
Caitlin Allen
Deputy Editor
ALSO KNOW
Trump’s rabble-rousing speech - President-elect Donald Trump mused on renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” in a freewheeling news conference at Mar-a-Lago this evening. He restated his desire to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal and refusing to rule out the use of military force to achieve such a goal.
Indonesia joins BRICS - Indonesia has joined the BRICS bloc, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and aims to provide an alternative to the US-led order, amid concerns over Donald Trump’s protectionist policies.
Trump Jr in Greenland - Donald Trump Jr. visited Greenland today, following his father’s stated interest in buying the territory. Trump Jr stressed that it was a personal trip and not about buying Greenland, which remains part of Denmark, but the visit stirred political reactions, with officials reaffirming Greenland’s sovereignty and rejecting the idea of it being sold.
UK’s long-term borrowing costs - The UK’s long-term borrowing costs hit their highest level since the late 1990s this morning, with the 30-year gilt yield reaching 5.21%. This surpassed the October 2023 peak and heights reached during the 2022 market fallout from Liz Truss’s “mini” Budget.
FIVE THINGS
1. Does dry January really make you healthier? In Wired.
2. Biden issues a sweeping oil leasing ban, reports The Wall Street Journal.
3. Ghosts of the old Middle East, in Engelsberg Ideas.
4. Prince Andrew reported to police for “fake name on company files”, reveals The Times.
5. The key climate and nature moments to look out for in 2025, in BBC Future.
"panders to Trump"?
How about: "good to see that 'anonymous men in lanyards' will no longer be able to dictate policy by telling social media which vested interests to promote"?
Surely the story is that Zuckerberg now admits what he previously denied, that these 'anonymous men in lanyards' get to dictate their views and their policies (and their vested interests!) as being a neutral, 'fact-checked'?
So the question we should be asking is what else did vested interests manage to promote during 2016-2024 that might, just possibly, have been good for vested interests but not good for society, or for the common man?
When the administration - in cahoots with a compliant media and judiciary - gets to dictate the official line (however divorced from reality this might be), you get problems, as there are no checks and balances, and decision-makers can wriggle out of being held to account.