Backlash begins. Multiple reactions to the plan by Meta and Mark Zuckerberg to drop its US fact-checking programs
Meta Platforms and CEO Mark Zuckerberg are facing pushback from multiple directions, to the controversial decision to end third-party fact-checking for Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had announced in a video “it is time to get back to our roots around free expression. We’re replacing fact checkers with Community Notes…”
But the decision triggered a reaction, with some Meta staff taking to their internal forum to criticise the move. The move has also been criticised by co-chair of Meta’s Oversight Board, the independent body that reviews Facebook and Instagram content.
And the European Commission has also rejected Zuckerberg’s assertion that European Union data laws have censored social media.
European Commission
Zuckerberg had announced that it is ending third party fact-checking program in the US, and is moving to a Community Notes model, and had cited censorship problems with fact-checking due to the alleged biases and perspectives of the fact-checkers themselves.
It should be noted that fact-checking organisations have strongly denied these allegations.
Meta’s move has already been denounced by multiple human and civil rights groups, including UK fact-checking organisation Full Fact, whose CEO called the announcement “a backwards step that risks a chilling effect around the world”.
Reuters meanwhile noted that the European Commission has on Wednesday rejected Zuckerberg’s assertion that European Union data laws censored social media, and said they only required large platforms to remove illegal content.
“Europe has an ever increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there,” Zuckerberg had said.
The European Commission however reportedly said its Digital Services Act did not force or request platforms to remove lawful content but only to take down content that may be harmful, such as to children or to the EU’s democracies.
“We absolutely refute any claims of censorship,” a Commission spokesperson was quoted as saying.
Oversight Board
Meanwhile the co-chair of Meta’s Oversight Board, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, told the BBC she is “very concerned” about how Meta’s decision to ditch fact-checkers will affect minority groups.
Thorning-Schmidt (a former prime minister of Denmark) welcomed aspects of the shake-up, but said there were “huge problems” with what had been announced, including the potential impact on the LGBTQ+ community, as well as gender and trans rights.
“We are seeing many instances where hate speech can lead to real-life harm, so we will be watching that space very carefully,” she added.
The decision has also prompted speculation about the survival of the oversight board going forward.
Staff concerns
Meanwhile CNBC reported that some Meta employees have taken to internal forums to criticise the move.
Joel Kaplan, Meta’s new Republican chief global affairs officer, announced the content policy changes on Workplace, the in-house communications tool.
“We’re optimistic that these changes help us return to that fundamental commitment to free expression,” Kaplan reportedly wrote in the post, which was reviewed by CNBC.
CNBC noted that one worker wrote they were “extremely concerned” about the decision, saying it appears Meta is “sending a bigger, stronger message to people that facts no longer matter, and conflating that with a victory for free speech.”
Another staffer reportedly commented that “simply absolving ourselves from the duty to at least try to create a safe and respective platform is a really sad direction to take.”
Other comments expressed concern about the impact the policy change could have on the discourse around topics such as immigration, gender identity and gender, which, according to one employee, could result in an “influx of racist and transphobic content.”
A separate employee said they were scared that “we’re entering into really dangerous territory by paving the way for the further spread of misinformation.”
It is not clear at the time of writing how many Meta staff have expressed concerns about the move, but some have reportedly supported the decision
Currying favour?
There has been a remarkable change to Meta’s dealings with Donald Trump in recent weeks following Trump’s election victory.
This includes Meta donating $1 million to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration fund, and Zuckerberg having dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
More recently Meta’s president of global affairs Nick Clegg (former a UK deputy prime minister), announced he is to leave the company and will hand over his position to Joel Kaplan, a prominent Republican.
Then this week Meta Platforms said it has elected a close friend of US president-elect Donald Trump to its board of directors, along with two others.
Dana White, chief executive of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), has a long relationship with Trump and spoke in support of Trump’s election campaign in 2016, 2020 and 2024.
Come a long way
However Zuckerberg’s change of direction has been welcomed by one person, namely Donald Trump himself.
Speaking after the changes were announced, Trump told a news conference he was impressed by Zuckerberg’s decision and that Meta had “come a long way.”
Asked whether Zuckerberg was “directly responding” to threats Trump had made to him in the past, the incoming US president responded: “Probably.”
Trump had previously threatened Zuckerberg with life in prison.