Meta's oversight board says there are major problems with excluding fact-checkers

The co-chair of the independent body that reviews Facebook and Instagram content said she was “deeply concerned” about how parent company Meta's decision to ditch fact-checkers would affect minorities.

Hailey Thorning-Schmidt, of Meta's oversight board, told the BBC she welcomed aspects of the change, which will see users decide the accuracy of posts via X-style “community feedback.”

However, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, she said there were “huge problems” with what was announced, including the potential impact on the LGBTQ+ community, as well as gender and trans rights.

“We are seeing many instances where hate speech can lead to real harm, so we will be monitoring this space very carefully,” she added.

In a video clip posted In a blog post published by the company on Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the motivation behind the decision was “to return to our roots of freedom of expression.”

He said the third-party fact-checkers the company currently uses are “too politically biased,” meaning too many users are being “censored.”

The decision has raised questions about the survival of the board – which is funded by Meta and set up by the then head of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg. Who announced his departure from the company Less than a week ago.

Ms Thorning-Schmidt – the former Prime Minister of Denmark – insisted that changes to fact-checking mean it is needed more than ever.

“That is why it is good to have an oversight board that can discuss this matter in a transparent way with Meta,” she said.

She welcomed some of Meta's announcements on moderation, including its goal of finding a new way to fact-check after cases of “over-enforcement” occur, where people end up in “Facebook jail.”

While Meta says the move – which was initially introduced in the US – is about freedom of expression, others have suggested it is an attempt to ingratiate themselves with the incoming Trump administration, and catch up to the reach and influence that Trump enjoys. Another tech giant, Elon Musk.

Tech journalist and author Kara Swisher told the BBC that this was the “most cynical move” she had seen Zuckerberg make in the “many years” she had been covering him.

“Facebook is doing whatever is in its own self-interest,” she said.

“He wants to kiss Donald Trump, and follow Elon Musk in the act.”

while Activists against online hate speech reacted with dismay at the changeSome freedom of expression advocates welcomed the news.

“Meta's ad shows the marketplace of ideas in action. Its users want a social media platform that doesn't suppress political content or employ top-down fact-checkers,” US free speech group FIRE said.

“We hope these changes will lead to less arbitrary moderation decisions and greater freedom of expression on meta platforms.”

Speaking after the changes were announced, Trump said at a press conference that he admired Zuckerberg's decision and that Meta had “come a long way.”

Asked whether Zuckerberg was “directly responding” to the threats Trump made against him in the past, the next US president replied: “Maybe.”

Zuckerberg acknowledged on Tuesday that there were some risks for the company in changing the strategy.

“This means we'll catch fewer bad things, but we'll also cut down on the number of innocent people's posts and accounts we accidentally delete,” he said in his video message.

X's move to a more hands-off approach to content moderation has brought about significant change Down with advertisers.

That poses a risk for Meta as well, said Jasmine Enberg, an analyst at Insider Intelligence.

“Meta's huge size and powerful advertising platform somewhat insulates it from the exodus of X-like users and advertisers,” she told the BBC.

“But brand safety remains a key factor in determining where advertisers spend their budgets — any significant decline in engagement could hurt Meta's advertising business, given intense competition for users and ad dollars.”