Meta’s move to end 3rd party fact-checkers, a disservice to the public, groups say

By ANNE MARXZE D. UMIL
Bulatlat.com

MANILA – The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) denounced Meta’s move to end its fact-checking program with its partners starting in the United States, replacing this with what they call the “community notes” model.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the changes this week. He said that this move aims to “restore free expression” and reduce censorship on Meta’s platforms.

But for the NUJP, Meta’s plan to abandon fact-checking “removes another important guard rail against disinformation and misinformation on social media and will make it more difficult for users to sift through the noise online.”

“The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines joins our colleagues in denouncing Facebook parent Meta turning its back on its partners and, more importantly, its responsibility to its users, many of whom use its platforms as their main source of information and entertainment,” the group said in its statement.

The group added that Meta’s move only benefits entities with the resources to manipulate information, particularly during elections.

“While Meta is correct in saying it should not be the arbiter of truth, this change as well as the decreasing emphasis on news and the prioritization of emotion and engagement, risks making truth trivial, inconsequential and just a distraction from being distracted by online noise,” they added.

The NUJP stressed that “this is a great disservice to the public, and an outright distortion of the essence of free speech and expression.”

Movement Against Disinformation (MAD) also said that the plan “eliminates an important layer of expert oversight, creating an environment where harmful content can spread unchecked, allowing misinformation to thrive.”

It added that the community notes model, which will replace fact-checking, “risks replacing fact-based moderation with opinion-based interpretations, further undermining the integrity of the information ecosystem.”

Zuckerberg’s plan to shift to community notes is similar to the model used by X (formerly Twitter), which relies on user-generation notes to provide context to content.

MAD said, “while this aims to encourage shared responsibility in content moderation, the system is inherently flawed. It depends on users agreeing on context, which can easily be manipulated by bad actors with agendas.”

MAD also expressed their concern on Meta’s plan to lift restrictions and scale back enforcement on topics it considers part of mainstream discourse and not “illegal or high severity.” They said this shift “may unintentionally allow harmful rhetoric to spread more easily, normalizing dangerous ideas and disinformation.”

MAD also added that Meta’s plans to reintroduce political content into users’ feeds by tailoring it based on the accounts they follow and their individual preferences could create echo chambers, exposing users only to content that aligns with their beliefs and deepening polarization.

Meanwhile, NUJP underscored that fact-checking has long been a core element of journalism and will continue to be, regardless of Meta’s actions.

They added that as social media platforms increasingly prioritize engagement and profit over their responsibility to their users, “it falls on the media community to, hand-in-hand with academe, civil society and social media users, help make sure spaces remain for verified facts and for civil discourse on these hell sites.”

Meanwhile, in reaction, Angie Drobnic Holan, head of the International Fact-Checking Network said Meta’s decision will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate and reliable information.

“Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it has provided additional information and context to controversial claims, while debunking hoaxes and conspiracy theories,” Holan explained. “The fact-checkers used by Meta adhere to a Code of Principles that requires nonpartisanship and transparency.”

She further emphasized, “Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work. That accusation comes from those who believe they should be able to exaggerate and lie without facing rebuttal or contradiction.” (RTS, RVO)