Image credit: Grok/X

Meta’s decision to eliminate third-party fact-checkers across Facebook and Instagram has sparked significant concern, with critics warning of potential harm to minority groups and the wider implications for online discourse.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair of Meta's independent oversight board, voiced her concerns about the shake-up. While she acknowledged the introduction of "community notes" for user-led fact-checking, she warned of “huge problems” with the new approach, particularly its impact on LGBTQ+ communities and gender and trans rights.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4, she noted that hate speech often leads to real-world harm, emphasizing the importance of monitoring the situation closely.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg justified the decision as a return to the company’s "roots around free expression."

READ MORE: Meta shelves fact-checkers

He argued that third-party fact-checkers had become "too politically biased," leading to unnecessary censorship of users’ posts.

However, the move has been criticized by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa, who called the shift "extremely dangerous" for democracy and social media users, accusing Meta of prioritizing profit and power over public safety.

The changes have also raised questions about the oversight board’s role, as it was created to provide independent checks on Meta’s content decisions. Thorning-Schmidt defended the board’s relevance, stating its function is more crucial than ever in ensuring transparency.

Some critics see Meta’s strategy as a bid to align itself with the incoming Trump administration, with tech journalist Kara Swisher describing the move as “the most cynical” in Zuckerberg’s career.

She argued that Zuckerberg’s actions reflect an attempt to regain influence comparable to Elon Musk’s sway in political circles. Trump himself praised the decision, suggesting it might be a response to previous tensions between him and Zuckerberg.

Free speech advocates, however, have welcomed the change. The U.S. free speech group Fire applauded Meta’s shift, stating it aligns with users’ desire for less restrictive content moderation. They hope the move will reduce arbitrary account suspensions and promote freer speech.

Despite the support, the decision carries risks. Zuckerberg admitted that fewer fact-checking measures would result in more harmful content slipping through, though he argued it would also minimize wrongful takedowns of innocent posts.

Analysts have warned that the strategy could lead to advertiser backlash, similar to what has occurred on X (formerly Twitter) following its own hands-off moderation policy.

While Meta’s vast scale and advertising capabilities provide some protection against a user or advertiser exodus, concerns remain about the platform’s brand safety and competition for advertising revenue. Insider Intelligence analyst Jasmine Enberg cautioned that any significant drop in user engagement could harm Meta’s ad business.

As Meta navigates this contentious shift, the debate over balancing free expression, content moderation, and public safety continues to intensify.

‍