- Mark Zuckerberg said that Meta decided to change its fact-checking system because the ‘fact-checkers’ had become too political and biased.
- In a podcast with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg mentioned that the Biden administration pressured him to censor information related to certain topics, including those that criticized vaccines and pharmaceutical companies.
- Many argue that this personal transformation is also a response to the accusations Meta faced during the pandemic, including claims of vaccine misinformation and political bias.
- However, many feel that relaxed moderation can lead to the amplification of misinformation, hate speech, and extreme content, with serious consequences.
Meta’s recent decision to end its fact-checking efforts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads marks a significant change in its content moderation strategy. With the Trump administration’s return to power, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced these changes, framing them as a step toward reducing political bias and promoting free expression, along with this he has also announced that Meta would become more people-centric, transparent and user-friendly.
‘Fact-Checking’ to ‘Community Notes’
Meta used third-party fact-checkers to review content on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. These fact-checkers would flag or remove posts they found misleading or false. The system aimed to keep the content accurate but often faced criticism for bias and for relying on external parties.
Now, Meta is replacing this system with “Community Notes.” This new approach allows regular users to add context to posts they believe are misleading, so it’s more community-driven. Instead of experts, everyday users will play a key role in pointing out misinformation. The focus will also shift to severe violations, with Meta reducing oversight on less harmful content.
It is very important to test these changes happening at Meta, especially just a few days before the presidential election inauguration. Recently, it was revealed by Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, that the company decided to change its fact-checking system because the fact-checkers had become too political and biased. Zuckerberg himself admitted that the fact-checkers were biased towards ideas opposite to Trump and the Republican Party, particularly on issues related to elections and gender. This shift is significant because Zuckerberg’s decision seems motivated by his business interests and a desire to avoid policies that go against the ideologies of Trump and the Republican Party.
Collateral Consequences
Relaxed moderation, as seen on X (formerly Twitter), can lead to the amplification of misinformation, hate speech, and extreme content, with serious consequences. A recent example is the “What’s wrong with India?” trend, where Indians were targeted with false claims and hateful content, often blaming them for events or actions that were unrelated to India. This included spreading misinformation about the country’s role in global incidents or attributing negative qualities to India that were not based in fact.
Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misleading information about the virus and vaccines spread rapidly on X, contributing to vaccine hesitancy and public health confusion. These examples show how reduced content moderation can allow harmful, divisive narratives to flourish, inciting hate, reinforcing stereotypes, and undermining public health efforts. Such unchecked content can have real-world consequences, including fueling violence, sowing distrust, and spreading misinformation.
Changes Amid Trump’s Return
Meta’s decision to relax content restrictions, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration and gender, has sparked concerns among experts. By allowing more posts to remain visible, the company might unintentionally amplify misinformation and extreme content. Zuckerberg’s decision aligns with other recent actions that seem to align Meta more closely with Trump’s agenda. These include relocating content moderation teams from California to Texas, committing to fight international censorship alongside Trump, and making substantial donations to Trump’s inaugural fund.
Critics argue that this strategy could result in a surge of harmful content and misinformation, reminiscent of the challenges faced by X under Elon Musk’s leadership. Many reports and research have indicated that moderation on X has led to hate speech, this content moderation by Meta follows a broader trend among the tech companies to adhere to political pressures while changing regulator landscapes, though it has to be seen how these changes impact the quality of information and democratic processes.
Meta’s Allegations Against the Biden Administration
Also, Mark Zuckerberg, in a recent podcast with Joe Rogan, mentioned that the Biden administration pressured him to censor information related to certain topics, including those that criticized vaccines and pharmaceutical companies. Mark Zuckerberg has claimed that the Biden administration pushed him to remove posts that questioned the official narratives on COVID-19 vaccines and other issues that went against the Democrats. He also alleged that U.S. intelligence agencies have direct access to WhatsApp accounts of American users. On top of that, Meta has scrapped its diversity and inclusion program, replacing it with a broader initiative that no longer makes distinctions between transgender individuals and others.
Reasons Behind the Changes
Zuckerberg’s transformation is not just limited to what he says but is also seen in his persona. Once seen as a nerdy figure, he’s now adopting a more charismatic image. He’s shifted from criticizing Trump to praising him as “the greatest survivor” after an assassination attempt. Zuckerberg has started backing the Republican Party and making changes at Meta that reflect more conservative values. With Republicans gaining ground politically, it looks like he’s adjusting to stay in line with the shift. He seems to believe that sticking to a more liberal stance could hurt Meta’s future, so he’s leaning into what seems to be a safer bet for the company.
Many analysts argue that this personal transformation is also a response to the accusations Meta faced during the pandemic, including claims of vaccine misinformation and political bias. This change reflects that Zuckerberg is shifting the attention away from these controversies.
Conclusion
Zuckerberg’s transformation isn’t just in his words or actions but also in his persona. Once seen as a nerdy figure, he’s now adopting a more charismatic image. He’s shifted from criticizing Trump to praising him as “the greatest survivor” after an assassination attempt.
Zuckerberg has also shown support to Republicans and since they are in power he might be thinking that taking a conservative turn is more favourable for him and his companies. Zuckerberg probably feels that clinging to a more liberal approach could harm Meta in the long run and hence is shifting toward what seems like a more secure path for him and the company.
Satish Chogule is pursuing a Masters in Political Science at the University of Kolhapur, Maharashtra. He has contributed to several online platforms on international affairs and global developments. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Parag Gilada 
Nandhini T 
Shrivara Mahajan