Huge problems with axing fact-checkers, Meta oversight board says

The co-chair of the independent body that reviews Facebook and Instagram content has said she is “very concerned” about how parent company Meta’s decision to ditch fact-checkers will affect minority groups.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, from Meta’s oversight board, told the BBC she welcomed aspects of the shake-up, which will see users decide about the accuracy of posts via X-style “community notes”.

However, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, she said there were “huge problems” with what had been announced, including the potential impact on the LGBTQ+ community, as well as gender and trans rights.

“We are seeing many instances where hate speech can lead to real-life harm, so we will be watching that space very carefully,” she added.

In a video posted alongside a blog post by the company on Tuesday, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said the decision was motivated by “getting back to our roots around free expression”.

He said third-party fact-checkers currently used by the firm were “too politically biased”, meaning too many users were being “censored”.

The decision has prompted questions about the survival of the board – which Meta funds and was created by then president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, who announced he was leaving the company less than a week ago.

Ms Thorning-Schmidt – a former prime minister of Denmark – insisted the changes to fact checking meant it was needed more than ever.

“That’s why it is good we have an oversight board that can discuss this in a transparent way with Meta”, she said.

She did welcome some of Meta’s announcement on moderation, including its aim to find a new way to fact-check after there had been instances of “over-enforcement”, with people ending up in “Facebook jail”.

While Meta says the move – which is being introduced in the US initially – is about free speech, others have suggested it is an attempt to get closer to the incoming Trump administration, and catch up with the access and influence enjoyed by another tech titan, Elon Musk.

The tech journalist and author Kara Swisher told the BBC it was “the most cynical move” she had seen Mr Zuckerberg make in the “many years” she had been reporting on him.

“Facebook does whatever is in its self-interest”, she said.

“He wants to kiss up to Donald Trump, and catch up with Elon Musk in that act.”

While campaigners against hate speech online reacted with dismay to the change, some advocates of free speech have welcomed the news.

The US free speech group Fire said: “Meta’s announcement shows the marketplace of ideas in action. Its users want a social media platform that doesn’t suppress political content or use top-down fact-checkers.

“These changes will hopefully result in less arbitrary moderation decisions and freer speech on Meta’s platforms.”

Speaking after the changes were announced, Trump told a news conference he was impressed by Mr Zuckerberg’s decision and that Meta had “come a long way”.

Asked whether Mr Zuckerberg was “directly responding” to threats Trump had made to him in the past, the incoming US president responded: “Probably.”

Mr Zuckerberg acknowledged on Tuesday there was some risk for the company in the change of strategy.

“It means we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down,” he said in his video message.

X’s move to a more hands-off approach to moderating content has contributed to a major fall-out with advertisers.

Jasmine Enberg, an analyst at Insider Intelligence, said that was a risk for Meta too.

“Meta’s massive size and powerhouse ad platform insulate it somewhat from an X-like user and advertiser exodus,” she told the BBC.

“But brand safety remains a key factor in determining where advertisers spend their budgets – any major drop in engagement could hurt Meta’s ad business, given the intense competition for users and ad dollars.”