We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

So-called “fact checkers” are furious over Meta’s decision to cut its ties with any and all “fact-checking” organizations.

As previously reported, Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg announced earlier this week that he intends to end all “fact-checking” programs and instead “replace them with Community Notes similar to X.”

“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg stressed in a statement.

The backlash began almost immediately, with the U.K.-based Full Fact organization condemning the policy change.

“Meta’s decision to end its partnership with fact checkers in the US is disappointing and a backwards step that risks a chilling effect around the world,” Full Fact CEO Chris Morris complained in a blog post.

He dubiously went on to claim that “fact-checkers” have been critical to “safeguarding elections,” “protecting public health,” and “dissipating potential unrest on the streets,” going so far as to label “fact-checkers” as “first responders in the information environment.”

“Our specialists are trained to work in a way that promotes credible evidence and prioritizes tackling harmful information – we believe the public has a right to access our expertise,” he argued. “We absolutely refute Meta’s charge of bias – we are strictly impartial, fact check claims from all political stripes with equal rigor, and hold those in power to account through our commitment to truth.”

Morris’s statement and claims prompted fierce pushback on Twitter/X.

Look:

Meanwhile, the so-called International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) has convened an emergency meeting for this Wednesday.

“In an exclusive interview … IFCN Director Angie Holan confirmed that the meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, was organized in direct response to Meta’s decision,” according to Insider.

“We hold these meetings monthly, but we called this one specifically because of today’s news,” she said.

The meeting is reportedly expected to draw up to 100 attendees from IFCN’s broad network of “fact-checkers.”

“The IFCN has long played a crucial role in Meta’s fact-checking ecosystem by accrediting organizations for Meta’s third-party program, which began in 2016 after the U.S. presidential election,” Insider notes.

“IFCN certification signaled that a fact-checking organization met rigorous editorial and transparency standards. Meta’s partnerships with these certified organizations became a cornerstone of its efforts to combat misinformation, focusing on flagging false claims, contextualizing misinformation, and curbing its spread,” the reporting continues.

Yet the “fact-checking” organizations recruited by Meta regularly and habitually labeled otherwise correct information as false.

Case in point:

According to Holan, the mood among her fellow “fact-checkers” is one of somberness and frustration.

“This program has been a major part of the global fact-checking community’s work for years,” she whined. “People are upset because they saw themselves as partners in good standing with Meta, doing important work to make the platform more accurate and reliable.”

The folks at PolitiFact, a particularly malicious “fact-checking” organization, are also upset.

“The PolitiFact team found out this morning at the same time as everyone else,” an employee told Insider. “I had a feeling it was bad news.”

“Bad news” for them, for sure, but certainly not bad news for the untold number of truth-tellers who’ve been censored in times past for relaying the facts — and nothing but the facts — on Facebook.

Vivek Saxena
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.