In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes, according to the famous Benjamin Franklin quote. In 2025 there are some things I could add to that list. January, for example, always brings breathless column inches about fresh starts and resolutions for the year; December is the traditional time for navel-gazing about why we failed to achieve them.
If Franklin was alive today perhaps he would add “disappointing chief executives” to that list. Several spring to mind, but the most recent must be Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg.
The Instagram and Facebook owner has made some changes that might lead onlookers to conclude, at best, that the company is actively courting the conservative ear out of self-preservation; at worst it comes off as craven.
Republican Joel Kaplan replaced Nick Clegg as head of global policy, who exited the company. Donald Trump ally and UFC chief Dana White has just been appointed to Meta’s board.
Kaplan was barely settled into his new role before the company dropped its next bombshell: starting in the US it was ending its third-party fact-checking programme, one that it had previously championed as proof it was taking its responsibilities seriously, and one that Trump had railed against. It is replacing it with an X-style community notes system where the community at large will be responsible for flagging misleading posts and disinformation.
Elon Musk, the man who could pick a fight in an empty room (or more aptly, a glitching Space), who cried for free speech while subsequently banning people who exercised it in ways that displeased him, has suddenly become an example to follow. He and Zuckerberg have gone from a potential cage fight – an unsettling development, no matter whose side you were on – to some sort of harmony.
Zuckerberg announced the move in a video that seemed designed to appeal specifically to the MAGA in Chief. Not only were they ditching the fact-checkers but Meta has also loosened the restrictions on permitted speech on its platforms. Zuckerberg claimed fact-checkers had become “too politically biased” and “destroyed more trust than they’ve created”, something the fact-checkers themselves have hit back against.
As for destroying trust that is something that Zuckerberg himself should be well acquainted with; the social media platforms he presides over have been involved with numerous controversies, including data privacy and manipulating its users as part of a psychological experiment.
Only a few months ago Trump was threatening to jail Zuckerberg for life. A dinner at Mar a Lago later, a $1 million donation to the inaugural campaign, and suddenly Meta is singing a more Trump-friendly tune that earned Zuckerberg a slap on the back from the president-elect.
There are undoubtedly benefits to this move for Meta, which is facing an antitrust case in the US in the near future. Fact-checking isn’t a problem-free programme given the sheer volume of content on Instagram and Facebook, and it is a partnership that costs the company money. Better, it seems, to tap into the community. Sure, some may have less expertise than the previous partners, particularly when it comes to verifying the accuracy of information, but they are free and apparently willing to do the work.
For now the change only applies to the US. In the EU the situation is more complex thanks to differing regulations covering online services.
Moderating content on social media platforms is a mammoth thankless task. Mistakes, as Kaplan pointed out, have been made. Content has been removed in error – by Meta’s moderation, rather than by fact-checkers, who don’t actually have that power regardless of where Zuckerberg is trying to lay the blame.
But whatever Meta’s problems may be with overzealous content moderation, community notes are unlikely to be the answer, not least because it is not clear that community notes has worked for X. In theory it’s a nice idea: the community polices itself. In practice X is still rife with misleading information and you don’t have to look too hard to find it.
A report published last year by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found community notes had little impact on the level of misinformation on X. The very nature of the system – getting a consensus among those who would usually disagree – means the majority of notes remain unpublished anyway. Meanwhile, posts that would have been fact-checked by third parties have gone viral, while the note-writers argue in the unpublished comments. Community notes is not the place to air opinions but it often becomes one. It doesn’t make for the most efficient system.
All of that has had a noticeable impact on X’s business. The increase in objectionable content in the pursuit of “free speech” has meant a precipitous drop in advertising spend. While X may have made some of it back it is unlikely to have reached the pre-Musk days. But as a private business Musk is king of that particular castle. He only has to answer to himself.
Meta, on the other hand, still has a healthy advertising business. But if advertisers find their content alongside conspiracy theories and misinformation will they be willing to continue to invest? And if that falls away how will shareholders react?
Zuckerberg acknowledged that the change would mean less bad content was picked up. But it seems there are few things that Americans class as worse than restricting someone’s free speech even if that speech of full of lies and has harmful effects.
Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. The question is: who exactly will bear the consequences of this move in the future?
