I’m not sure if when a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon, a storm rages on the other side of the world, but the butterfly effect is quite real; we’re living it right now. For example, Trump won the November 5, 2024 election, and now, in the early week of January 2025, Zuckerberg discontinues the fact-checking program across Meta’s social networks.
We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms. […] In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms […]. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable. Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do.
Meta intends to phase down its third-party fact-checking program in the United States and replace it with a Community Notes system modelled after a similar method on X. Wait, wasn’t X, like Elon Musk himself, a horrible, poisonous platform (and a cruel agent)? Why would Meta behave in the same way as X?
The first fact-checking initiative, which began in 2016, sought to offer viewers with extra information regarding online material via independent fact-checkers. However, Meta admits that biases and errors in fact-checking resulted in unintentional restriction of valid political speech and discussion, undercutting the program’s objectives. That’s putting it lightly.
Let’s not forget another one of Zuckerberg’s recent gems:
Zuckerberg admitted that Meta should not have blocked the Hunter Biden laptop report, but caved in.
So, the new Community Notes feature is said to enable people from all perspectives to collaborate on identifying potentially misleading messages and provide extra information. Meta will not generate or select which Notes appear; rather, people will write and rate Notes, with controls in place to guarantee balanced input from a variety of perspectives. Meta also intends to be open about how diverse views influence the Notes presented on its platforms.
Community Notes will be launched in the United States over the following six months, with plans to develop the system throughout the year. Users may already become early contributors by signing up on Facebook, Instagram, or Threads. As the transition continues, Meta will discontinue its present fact-checking controls, stop demoting flagged material, and replace invasive warnings with discreet labels that lead to further detail.
The goal of this change is to give users greater tools for evaluating information while minimising prejudice and avoiding censorship, which aligns more closely with Meta’s initial mission of encouraging informed online interaction.
Personally, I am sceptical until I see real confirmation of the aforementioned goals and objectives; yet, I cannot deny that it is a start in the right way. According to Zuck, the fact-checkers caused more harm than good.
The only concern I have is whether Zuckerberg would have done the same thing if Trump hadn’t won the November election.
