Open the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US elections mean for Washington and the world
Facebook owner Meta has ended its third-party fact-checking program and will instead rely on its users to report misinformation, as the social media giant prepares for Donald Trump's return as president.
The $1.59 trillion company said Tuesday that it “will allow for greater expression by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal, high-risk violations” and “taking a more personalized approach to political content.”
“It's time to go back to our roots of free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and co-founder of Meta, said in a video post.
President-elect Trump strongly criticized Zuckerberg during last year's US presidential election campaign, suggesting that if that happens dead If he interferes in the 2024 elections, he “will spend the rest of his life in prison.”
But the founder of Facebook has He sought to rebuild relations with Trump After his win in November, including visiting him at his Florida residence in Mar-a-Lago.
On Monday, Meta moved to make further inroads with the incoming US presidential administration by hiring the UFC founder and prominent Trump supporter Dana White to its Board of Directors.
White will sit on Meta's board alongside another Trump ally, technology investor Marc Andreessen, who has long pushed the company to ease its censorship of online content.
Zuckerberg said the complexity of its content moderation system, which was expanded in December 2016 after Trump's first election victory, had introduced “a lot of errors and a lot of censorship.”
Starting in the US, Meta will move to a so-called “community feedback” model, similar to the one used by Elon Musk X, which allows users to add context to controversial or misleading posts. Meta itself will not write community feedback.
Zuckerberg added that Meta will also change its systems to “dramatically reduce” the amount of content its automated filters remove from its platforms.
This includes lifting restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender, to focus their systems on “unlawful and high-risk abuses”, such as terrorism, child exploitation and fraud.
He acknowledged that the changes would mean Meta would “catch less bad stuff,” but said the trade-off was worthwhile reducing the number of “innocent people’s” posts removed.
The changes bring Zuckerberg closer to getting along with Muskwhich reduced content moderation after purchasing the social media platform, then called Twitter, in 2022.
“Just like in X, community feedback will require agreement among people with a range of viewpoints to help prevent biased evaluations,” Meta said in a blog post.
Joel Kaplan, the prominent Republican who Meta announced last week that he would take over as the company's head of global affairs from Sir Nick Clegg, told Fox News on Tuesday that third-party fact-checkers were “extremely biased.”
Referring to Trump's return to the White House on January 20, Kaplan added: “We have a real opportunity now. We have a new administration and a new president coming in, who are great advocates of free speech and that makes a difference.”
As part of the changes announced on Tuesday, Meta also said it would move its US-based content moderation staff from California to Texas. “I think it will help us build the trust to do this work in places where there's less concern about our teams being biased,” Zuckerberg said.
Zuckerberg first introduced a third-party fact-checking service as part of a set of measures in late 2016 designed to address criticism of rampant misinformation on Facebook.
he He said At the time the company needed “stronger detection” of misinformation and would work with the news industry to learn from fact-checking systems used by journalists.
But on Tuesday, Zuckerberg blamed governments and “legacy media” for pushing his company to “impose more and more censorship.”
He said Meta would work with the Trump administration “to push back against governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing for more oversight.”
He pointed to restrictive regulations in China and Latin America, as well as highlighting what he called the “ever-increasing number” of European laws that “institutionalize censorship and make it difficult to build anything innovative there.”
