Meta’s recent decision to end its partnerships with fact-checking organizations has caused a significant shift in the media and political landscape, particularly among right-wing groups and politicians. The move has drawn criticism from fact-checkers who argue that the action undermines the work they have done to combat misinformation online.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s statement that fact-checkers are “too politically biased” and have “destroyed more trust than they’ve created” has further fueled the controversy. This remark has raised questions about who exactly is losing trust and whether Zuckerberg’s claims about bias are justified. Many of the same groups who supported former President Donald Trump, known for promoting misinformation, have praised Meta’s changes. Trump’s supporters, particularly in the MAGA camp, have long been critical of fact-checking, viewing it as a form of censorship rather than a means of ensuring accuracy.

Some fact-checking organizations have been blindsided by Meta’s decision, as it leaves them without the financial backing they relied on. For instance, Jesse Stiller, the managing editor of Check Your Fact, expressed concern that this move would severely impact their operations, possibly shutting them down. Other organizations, like Lead Stories, also expressed frustration, noting that Meta had never raised concerns about political bias before. Despite this, Lead Stories emphasized that they would continue their operations through other funding sources, although some of their work in the United States would be affected.

This decision by Meta has far-reaching consequences. The initial push for fact-checking on platforms like Facebook came in response to the spread of misinformation, particularly around the 2016 U.S. elections, when fake news stories gained significant traction. Meta’s current reversal of its fact-checking policy may inadvertently allow falsehoods to spread unchecked, to the detriment of users who rely on these platforms for accurate information.

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and other organizations have warned that without professional fact-checking, users are more vulnerable to manipulation by powerful interests prioritizing their own agendas over public good. One of Meta’s new approaches to content verification is a community-driven system similar to the one used by X (formerly Twitter). However, critics argue that this system, while appealing in theory, lacks the reliability of professional fact-checkers, especially for complex scientific or technical topics. The community notes system has also been criticized for not being held to any ethical standards or ensuring that users are free from bias.

In summary, Meta’s decision to end its partnerships with fact-checking organizations reflects a larger political battle over the definition of truth and the role of social media platforms in controlling misinformation. Critics of the move argue that it will lead to a decline in reliable information online, leaving users vulnerable to false narratives promoted by partisan or interest-driven groups.