Header image © 2025 www.freemalaysiatoday.com
By Margarita Koromila, CMO at Athens Technology Center (ATC)
Meta’s recent decision to scale back its fact-checking efforts has sent shockwaves through the global fight against misinformation. At a time when disinformation continues to poison public discourse, this move has drawn sharp criticism from media experts, academics, and fact-checking organizations alike.
A step back that undermines progress
By deprioritizing fact-checking, Meta risks undoing years of progress, exposing billions of users to unchecked falsehoods, and emboldening state-sponsored influence operations. For a platform with unparalleled global reach, this isn’t just a strategic misstep—it’s a dereliction of its responsibility to protect truth and trust in the digital age.
Meta’s fact-checking initiatives, while not flawless, were essential in slowing the spread of disinformation, adding critical context to misleading claims, and combating conspiracy theories. Reducing these efforts now creates a vacuum where disinformation thrives unchecked, threatening the integrity of the digital ecosystem.
The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), a prominent initiative tackling disinformation across Europe, has expressed grave concerns. In their statement, EDMO warned:
“By deprioritizing fact-checking programs, Meta not only undermines the fight against disinformation but also weakens the vital work of fact-checking organizations, which are crucial for a healthy information ecosystem.”
This sentiment is echoed by the MEDDMO project , a regional hub of the European Digital Media Observatory covering Greece, Cyprus and Malta; the project team described Meta’s rollback as a “clear step backward” and called for platforms to act as allies in the fight against disinformation, rather than exacerbating the problem. According to their statement:
“Meta’s decision sends a troubling signal that profit and operational convenience are being prioritized over the global effort to combat disinformation.”
Expert concerns: a crisis of accountability
Meta’s decision has drawn widespread criticism from experts across the globe, who have warned of its far-reaching consequences.
- Angie Drobnic Holan, Head of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), stated:
“This decision will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives… Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, debunked hoax content, and challenged conspiracy theories.”
Holan emphasized that Meta’s decision appears to have been influenced by political pressure and unfair criticism of fact-checkers as biased, despite the IFCN’s Code of Principles that ensures nonpartisan and transparent practices.
- The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health voiced serious concerns about how this rollback could worsen the spread of science-related misinformation, particularly on topics like climate change, vaccines, and public health crises. They warned that false narratives on these critical issues could gain dangerous momentum, putting lives at risk.
- According to The Conversation, Meta’s move could embolden bad actors, including state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, to exploit the platform’s reduced oversight. Their report highlights how unchecked disinformation could further erode public trust in democratic institutions and digital platforms.
This aligns with warnings from the Lowy Institute, which noted:
“Meta’s decision to ditch fact-checking gives state-sponsored influence operations more room to manipulate narratives and sway public opinion. With weakened fact-checking, platforms like Facebook are even more vulnerable to coordinated disinformation campaigns.”
The hidden costs: trust, public health, and global stability
Meta’s rollback comes with significant hidden costs that threaten not only the platform’s credibility but also global public trust in digital communication. These costs include:
- empowering disinformation campaigns: without dedicated fact-checkers, the platform is more likely to become a breeding ground for false information; state-sponsored actors and misinformation peddlers face fewer barriers in spreading falsehoods.
- confusion among users: many users rely on fact-checking labels to evaluate content; without them, navigating the flood of misinformation becomes more challenging.
- public harm: during critical moments like elections, health crises, or global emergencies, unchecked disinformation could lead to disastrous consequences for individuals and societies.
- eroding platform trust: Meta’s decision signals a troubling shift in priorities – placing operational efficiency and cost-cutting above the public good.
For a platform that serves as a primary source of information for billions, these risks are far too great to ignore.
A failure of responsibility in the digital age
Social media platforms like Meta have become the public squares of the 21st century, shaping how people consume information and interact with the world. With this influence comes the responsibility to ensure that these digital spaces remain credible, trustworthy, and free from disinformation.
Yet, as the European Digital Media Observatory has pointed out, Meta’s decision reflects a troubling failure to uphold this responsibility:
“At a time when collaboration between platforms, researchers, and fact-checkers is more vital than ever, Meta’s withdrawal weakens the very alliances needed to protect the global information ecosystem.”
The Lowy Institute and other experts have further emphasized that this decision is a gift to those who thrive on spreading falsehoods – whether for political, financial, or strategic gain.
The way forward: invest in truth, not retreat
Rather than abandoning fact-checking, Meta has an opportunity to lead by example. Platforms with Meta’s resources and global influence have the power to shape the future of digital trust.
- Integrate advanced AI tools: use cutting-edge AI to assist human fact-checkers, improving the speed and accuracy of misinformation detection.
- Strengthen partnerships: work closely with reputable fact-checking organizations like the IFCN and local fact-checking groups worldwide to ensure comprehensive coverage.
- Increase transparency: provide clear, publicly accessible information on how misinformation is flagged and addressed, rebuilding user trust.
- Invest in digital literacy: launch educational programs to help users critically evaluate content and recognize misleading claims.
These steps aren’t just necessary, they’re achievable. As EDMO, MEDDMO, and others have emphasized, the fight against disinformation requires collaboration, innovation, and commitment.
At Athens Technology Center (ATC), we empower media organizations and platforms with advanced fact-checking software solutions designed to combat disinformation at scale. By combining AI-driven technology with human expertise, we help ensure that every piece of content is accurate, credible, and trusted. Let’s build a digital future where truth matters.
Conclusion: a call for accountability
Meta’s decision to scale back fact-checking represents a dangerous retreat at a time when disinformation continues to threaten public trust, democracy, and global stability. For a platform that connects billions of users, truth and transparency are not optional – they are fundamental responsibilities.
As Angie Drobnic Holan stated, fact-checking is not about censorship; it’s about adding context, debunking hoaxes, and ensuring users can make informed decisions. For Meta to abandon this responsibility is to undermine the very trust that has allowed its platforms to thrive.