Meta’s recent decision to follow in X’s footsteps and scrap its factchecking program has ignited a firestorm of concern among experts who warn the move could unleash a torrent of unchecked misinformation on its platforms. The abrupt policy shift is being seen as a potentially perilous regression in content moderation that risks exacerbating societal polarization, imperiling vulnerable communities, and ultimately undermining the very fabric of democratic discourse.
Dr. Itziar Castelló, a reader in sustainability and the digital economy at City, University of London, pulled no punches in her assessment, asserting that Meta’s justification of “complexity” is merely a smokescreen to “support Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s agenda.” She emphasized the vital role that “effective, fast and unbiased factchecking” plays in the proper functioning of social media platforms and the fostering of healthy public debate in a democratic society.
The shift will intensify pressures on vulnerable groups, including children, minorities, gender rights advocates and LGBTQ+ communities, who are already targeted by hate speech. Additionally, it risks deepening societal polarisation and further fragmenting public discourse.
Dr. Itziar Castelló
Accountability and Deliberative Spaces at Risk
Meta’s oversight board and previous factchecking system, while imperfect, were seen as important steps towards enhancing the quality of deliberation on its platforms. However, the company’s latest move threatens to unravel that progress.
If Meta genuinely aspires to cultivate a “deliberative space driven by a global collective consciousness that keeps each other accountable,” as X’s Linda Yaccarino has suggested, experts argue it must establish robust structures that penalize coercion, foster reciprocity, and amplify diverse voices. Crucially, it must implement ironclad accountability measures to ensure credibility and trust.
Anonymity Enables Toxicity
The cloak of anonymity that social media affords is seen as a key driver of malicious behavior online. As reader Tony Cima pointed out, a simple requirement for users to provide verifiable identities, as the Guardian does for its letter writers, could go a long way in disincentivizing people from “propagating malicious, hateful and mendacious comments behind a cloak of anonymity.”
Empty Gestures and Unenforced Standards
Meta’s community standards have also come under fire as ineffectual and inconsistently enforced. Reader Phil Goddard related his own experience of repeatedly reporting “ludicrous lies, racist rants and scams” only to receive the same canned response: “Sorry, this post does not violate our community standards.”
This perceived indifference to blatant violations has led many to question whether Meta’s content moderation policies are anything more than empty gestures. With the abandonment of factchecking, those fears are only being amplified.
A Disservice and a Democratic Threat
In Dr. Castelló’s estimation, Meta’s regression in content moderation is not only a “disservice to its users,” but a veritable “threat to democratic values.” She cautioned that the ascendancy of figures like Trump is now “overriding the vision” of those, like Meta’s oversight board, who have advocated for the platform to help create a better society.
As the reverberations of Meta’s decision continue to ripple through the digital landscape, a palpable sense of unease is growing among those who have long sounded the alarm about the perils of misinformation. With the guardrails of factchecking now cast aside, the question on everyone’s mind is just how much damage will be wrought before the company chooses to reverse course, assuming it ever does.
