Since 2005, social media has become an incorporated part of society, with usage jumping from 5 per cent to more than 79 per cent in the US alone. To protect users, platforms such as Instagram and Facebook employ third-party fact-checkers, aiming to neutrally monitor communication spaces so the information available is true and not harmful to innocent people. Up until now, that is. On 7 January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta announced that the US versions of Instagram, Facebook, and Threads will no longer employ rigorous fact-checking, and will instead use “community notes” to let users themselves flag content, an approach similar to that of X (formally Twitter). In response to Zuckerberg’s announcement, fact-checking organisations and users alike have understandably expressed concern about this decision and its effects.
Since over half of US adults get their news from social media, we are likely to see people become – at least initially – excluded from the “knowledge loop.” So many are accustomed to Instagram, Facebook, etc., being their main source of news and information, that if these inevitably become less accurate and reliable, millions will miss out. Meta’s decision only currently affects the US, however, it is hard not to surmise that it may well spread internationally. Although some may have the sense to turn to dedicated news media, the loss of easily accessible news from Instagram and Facebook will certainly be seen in a less educated and less aware population.
The worst damage, however, will be that harmful echo chambers of (mis)information and behaviour will be further amplified and become more dangerous. Instagram and Facebook’s use of algorithms to determine viewers’ content based on their history means the lack of fact-checking will trap users in increasingly toxic online environments. If an individual is exposed to “bad” content, they are unlikely to leave a community note, as their exposure to such content implies they already somewhat believe or agree with it. Additionally, individuals who may accidentally find such echo chambers are likely to experience hate and even threats of violence if they dare attach a community note to any bad content. Ultimately, echo chambers of negative behaviour and attitudes towards others will be strengthened. Fact-checking organisations have expressed concern at Zuckerberg’s announcement precisely because they believe the decision could encourage hate speech online, and even fuel offline violence and animosity.
Although some could argue that the removal of third-party fact-checkers from social media is meant to encourage freedom of speech, reducing the accidental censoring of “normal” content, this doesn’t excuse the decision. The removal of external, neutral groups from the moderation of a closed and algorithmic environment like Instagram and Facebook only encourages behaviour that ultimately causes the platforms to turn sour and people to leave. If Zuckerberg does not want his platforms to be abandoned like X is being left for BlueSky, he needs to retract this backwards-leading approach, so that everyone on Facebook, Instagram and Threads can feel their presence and (sensible) beliefs are protected
“Apps de mensajería para iOS: Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Messages” by microsiervos is licensed under CC BY 2.0.