Mark Zuckerberg sent shockwaves through the media world this week by announcing that Meta would no longer rely on fact-checkers for content review, leaving the industry scrambling to secure its future. For years, Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program had been a lifeline for organizations tasked with policing “misinformation.” Now, with Meta pulling the plug, fact-checkers are facing an existential crisis.
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) has called an emergency meeting to address the fallout, highlighting the industry’s heavy dependence on Meta funding. This move by Zuckerberg may represent a long-overdue shift toward accountability and fairness in online discourse.
Angie Holan, IFCN Director, confirmed that the emergency meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, will bring together representatives from 170 organizations worldwide. These groups include some of the most recognizable—and controversial—names in fact-checking, such as Politifact.
The urgency stems from Meta’s outsized role in funding these organizations. A 2023 report by Poynter revealed that 63.5% of IFCN members participated in Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program, making it the most common funding source for fact-checkers until recently. The same report highlighted “funding and financial stability” as the industry’s greatest concern. Without Meta, many of these organizations are now facing potential collapse.
The question is whether this collapse would be a loss at all. Critics have long accused fact-checkers of bias and selective enforcement, undermining their credibility and reinforcing perceptions of partisanship.
Zuckerberg’s announcement was accompanied by a scathing critique of the fact-checking system. He argued that Meta’s reliance on third-party fact-checkers contributed to censorship concerns and eroded trust in the platform.
“Facts are not censorship,” argued Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute, which owns Politifact. But this defense has done little to sway skeptics who see fact-checking as a thinly veiled effort to suppress dissenting viewpoints.
Brown also sought to distance fact-checkers from Meta’s actions, claiming, “Fact-checkers never censored anything. Meta always held the cards.” Yet, critics argue that this defense rings hollow, as fact-checkers knowingly flagged content, fully aware that Meta would act on their assessments by shadow-banning or suppressing flagged posts.
The backlash against fact-checkers isn’t new. Organizations like Politifact have faced years of criticism for partisan rulings and questionable methodologies. High-profile missteps, such as defending union leader Randi Weingarten’s misleading statements, have eroded public trust.
These failures are not anomalies but evidence of a systemic bias within the fact-checking industry. By disproportionately targeting conservative voices and labeling legitimate debate as “misinformation,” fact-checkers have played a key role in shaping online narratives—often at the expense of free expression.
Meta’s decision couldn’t come at a worse time for fact-checkers, who were already grappling with financial instability. Grants now account for the majority of their funding, but Meta’s contribution remained substantial. In Politifact’s case, at least 5% of its budget came from Meta, with additional funding from TikTok.
With both Meta and TikTok pulling back support, the future looks grim for these organizations. For critics, this is a welcome development. As one commentator put it, “Let them fold up their tents for good.”
Zuckerberg’s move may signal a broader shift in the social media landscape. By stepping back from fact-checkers, Meta is distancing itself from the perception of censorship and partisan interference. This decision aligns with growing calls for platforms to prioritize free speech over content moderation.
The fact-checking industry’s downfall represents an opportunity to level the playing field and restore trust in online discourse. Without the influence of organizations like Politifact, debates can unfold organically, allowing users to weigh evidence and form their own conclusions.
As the IFCN prepares for its emergency meeting, the fact-checking industry faces an uncertain future. Without Meta’s financial support, many organizations may be forced to downsize—or shut down entirely.
For proponents of free speech, this is a chance to rethink the role of fact-checkers in public discourse. Rather than relying on unelected gatekeepers to define truth, platforms can empower users to engage with a diversity of perspectives.
Zuckerberg’s decision has sparked outrage among fact-checkers, but it has also reignited hope for a more open and balanced internet. In the end, the question isn’t whether the fact-checking industry will survive—it’s whether it deserves to.
The filthy felons should be locked up for the crimes they committed.
These fact checkers are the most corrupt assholes ever they only look one way. Where was the fact checking on Hunters
Laptop and his Treason accountable Trumps Russia Bullsh-t
These fact checkers should be indicated for fraud influence
Now the time to round them all up the will be in one place raid the democrats conspirators and election interference people
Sue; this is all true and the question that comes to mind is how were they allowed to gain such a foothold to begin with! Apparently the most corrupt Globalist conspirators, Demoncraps included with the Cabal, provided enough moola to keep the lying cheats in business and maintain the monopoly on “so called truth to fact” ratio!
Also Zuckerberg is just as dirty as the worst of them and I trust nothing that he touches or says; he’s “shifting his game with the tides of change” accordingly and as I see him just like many of the high-rollers, “too much money and corrupt to the core isn’t something one can wash off with a change of venue and some press releases!”
“A tiger does not change its stripes,” and in my book “once a prolific liar always a liar,” all of it is build-in.
*Typo built-in.
No they don’t deserve to survive! IF they didn’t do censorship than they wouldn’t be in this kind of financial trouble. Good for Zuckerberg–finally making the right decision to allow freespeech to flourish once again. Don’t tell us how to think!! “Let the people decide!!
Do right and trust God.
Snopes and all the Leftist websites, like Reddit- are bullshit.
I always thought the Haitian/Chinese/Russian to English fact-check translations posted were a bit off.
I can only spell Accountability one way; and it should apply to all equally; so now maybe it is time to pay the piper for some, all the details of who actually did what and by whose authorization should be laid bare for all to see, that is how you maintain truth and allow the public to make its own decision as to what to believe and now, journalism used to work that way once upon a time! Let’s not forget this digital manipulation communication with all of its data-mining is the way Zuckerberg made $Billions!
But now in this modern day hi-tech circus dystopian leaning world its coming down to who can control the narrative to control the masses! That isn’t any world I want to be a part of; where individual human rights and autonomy get buried alive to create a zombie hive of idiots! Zuckerberg loves “Metaverse play reality!”
Next MK-Ultra will a normal app for grade school children; can’t allow Jesus and God in the public schools but all this crap why the hell now they say, sure goes hand in hand with communism and indoctrination!