Meta Platforms Inc., which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, announced this week that it will implement a major change to its approach to misinformation within its products by eliminating financial support for independent fact checking organisations and reducing the amount of money paid to groups that verify facts on Meta’s products. This new policy is part of a larger shift in Meta’s content policies from relying on professional fact checking to a more user-driven and less centralised approach to verification of misinformation.
The Third Party Fact Checking Program, started by Meta in 2016, became one of the largest collaborative networks of non-partisan, independent fact checkers across social media platforms. During the course of this project, Meta has made numerous contributions to verified third party fact checking organisations in the United States and internationally — over $100M to date — to assist these organisations in their work to identify and classify misinformation.
With these recent changes, Meta has begun to signal an end to the third party fact checking model: many of the fact checking organisations in the US and internationally are facing major cuts, decreased payments or loss of contracts altogether. Many organisations that have been heavily reliant on funding from Meta — especially small organisations — are now facing layoffs and budget cuts.
Meta Shifts to “Community Notes” System
In January 2025, Meta announced a decision to stop using third-party fact-checkers within its own network in the U.S.; they will launch an alternative way to provide this type of service called “Community Notes,” similar to what was developed by Elon Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter). With this system, users will be able to provide context around potentially misleading posts, with the ultimate goal being to crowdsource context rather than hiring professionals to do so.
According to Meta, this change will promote “more free speech” and diminish the amount of political and other content that is viewed as biased and not moderated appropriately. Meta has often stated that it is widely believed that professional fact checkers can be seen as limiting people’s right to free speech when used in an attempt to moderate content.
Partners Received “Blindsided”
Multiple fact-checking organisations indicated that they felt blindsided by Meta’s change in direction. Some stated that they were notified via press release and/or social media post and had very little, if any, correspondence or communication with Meta prior to this announcement. This resulted in many of these partners scrambling to understand the extent of the financial implications for their companies and how to prepare going forward.
Many significant United States partners such as PolitiFact and Lead Stories that have been critical to Facebook’s efforts around misinformation could see their funding greatly reduced, forcing layoffs or other operational/strategic changes due to Meta’s decision.
Global Repercussions, Local Concerns
The present focus regarding the United States is leading to increased attention on the worldwide impacts associated with both decreased funding for fact checking from Meta and the re-evaluation of moderating systems. Fact-checking organisations located in multiple countries — including within South Asia and Latin America — have expressed concern regarding the potential repercussions on combating misinformation that could result from Meta’s withdrawal of support; especially given the prevalence of misinformation within these regions and the continued significant logistical challenges facing independent media.
Several of Meta’s current international partners have taken steps toward making their revenue streams more diversified and securing alternative forms of financial capital in anticipation of decreased support from the platform; however, both commenter groups are concerned about how much weaker the entire informational ecosystem may become as a result of decreased levels of funding from Meta — especially prior to large-scale electoral events or crises.
Discussion Regarding Misinformation and Free Expression
Also as a result of Meta’s transition, there is renewed interest in discussing how best to address issues relating to misinformation vs. free expression; proponents of Meta’s new policy say that by incorporating the user community into decisions about how to manage speech content, there is a greater chance that the speech will be viewed with less perceived bias or control from larger tech companies.
Critics of the policy argue that it opens the door for more people to spread false or harmful information, because individual users are not as capable as professional fact checkers, and community-created context may not be consistent between users or free from bias.
The Impact on Users
For everyday users of Facebook and Instagram, the result will likely be fewer professional fact checks available on the platforms, at least until the company makes a complete shift to a model where no third-party fact checking is being used. Users will instead likely see more posts associating with user-generated notes, which are context from users providing additional information to other users, as opposed to a news organization, a trained journalist, or a researcher.
Analysts have pointed out that without strict fact-checking, it will be even easier for misinformation to spread, particularly when the news is politically charged or happening very quickly. Data from Meta indicates that fact checks reduce the number of places on the platform where false information is engaged with, resulting in a higher probability of harm when professional verification is removed.
A versatile writer mainly works on trending news, daily updates from politics, business, crime, current affairs and entertainment.
