Abandoning fact-checking is dangerous

The company’s decision to abandon fact-checking signals that it is no longer willing to bear the responsibility of combating this dangerous trend, leaving a vacuum that bad actors at home and abroad are likely to exploit.”

Meta, the tech giant behind Facebook, Instagram and Threads, announced a significant policy shift last week: It will no longer employ independent fact-checkers to monitor and flag false content on its platforms.

While the company says it will continue to remove illegal activity, hate speech and explicit material, the abandonment of fact-checking signals an alarming retreat from the fight against misinformation and disinformation. The decision isn’t just a step backward — it is a surrender that carries grave consequences for the future of public discourse, democracy and social cohesion.

We have seen the potential for misinformation to destabilize our society. From conspiracy theories about election fraud to false narratives about coronavirus vaccines, unchecked falsehoods have exacerbated a public health crisis, deepened our political polarization and even been the cause of violence.

Meta’s platforms have often been central to the spread of such misinformation, because its algorithms often promote and prioritize it. The company’s decision to abandon fact-checking signals that it is no longer willing to bear the responsibility of combating this dangerous trend, leaving a vacuum that bad actors at home and abroad are likely to exploit.

The announcement comes at a time when public trust in crucial institutions like the courts and the media is already at a historic low. By stepping away from fact-checking, Meta is essentially declaring that truth is a relative concept in the digital age. This dangerous idea has dire implications.

If platforms as influential as Facebook and Instagram refuse to differentiate between fact and fiction, the lines between credible information and out-and-out lies and conspiracy theories will blur even further. This will inevitably empower those who benefit from sowing chaos and confusion, whether they are political extremists, foreign actors, or profit-driven disinformation peddlers.

The broader context of Meta’s decision is equally troubling.

Over the past few years, tech companies have faced increasing scrutiny and pressure from both ends of the political spectrum. Some conservatives have accused platforms of censorship, particularly in high-profile cases like Facebook’s suspension of then President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Republicans in Congress and conservative courts have cast social media moderation as government overreach and an attack on free speech.

But Meta’s retreat from fact-checking is not a victory for free speech; it is a capitulation to chaos. Free speech thrives in an environment where truth and accountability prevail. Local newspapers, which are committed to objective journalism, continue to fact-check and be a source of fairness and truth, but platforms without that commitment become echo chambers for lies, propaganda and hate. The removal of guardrails does not level the playing field; it tilts it in favor of those who manipulate information for power or profit.

This creates a toxic environment in which hate speech and antisemitism flourish, as recent trends have shown. Marginalized groups, often the primary targets of such rhetoric, will bear the brunt of the harm.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish global human rights organization, stated that it is “deeply concerned” about the decision.

“This reckless move disregards the immense responsibility social media companies bear in protecting vulnerable communities and mitigating the spread of harmful and dangerous ideologies,” the center said in a statement. “History has repeatedly shown that online hate does not remain confined to the digital realm — it manifests in tragic offline consequences.”

By abandoning its responsibility to curb misinformation, Meta risks alienating users and advertisers who value trustworthy, safe online spaces. In a world where lies often spread faster than truth, elections can be swayed by disinformation campaigns, public health initiatives can be derailed by conspiracy theories and trust in scientific and journalistic institutions can erode beyond repair.

The question of who bears responsibility for curbing misinformation in the digital age is complex, but Meta’s decision sets a dangerous precedent. If one of the most influential companies in the world believes it can abdicate this responsibility without consequences, other platforms are likely to follow. This may well create a domino effect in which the internet devolves into a free-for-all of unchecked falsehoods and extremism.

We must demand better. Governments and regulators must step in where companies such as Meta have stepped back, enforcing stricter rules about misinformation and holding platforms accountable for the content they amplify. Non-governmental organizations and independent watchdogs must also play a role in promoting digital literacy and fact-checking.

Meta’s retreat from that crucial responsibility is more than a corporate decision; it is a warning sign. If we fail to act, the world Meta is helping to create could be one in which truth, accountability and even democracy itself are the casualties.