Meta executives condemn CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to stop fact-checking on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, saying the social media mogul has criticized President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. He previously said he was “succumbing to political pressure.”
The comments from Michael McConnell, co-chair of Meta’s Oversight Committee, come after Zuckerberg’s sudden shift in policy to loosen content moderation policies and eliminate censorship. and caused anxiety among advertisers who fear a resurgence of misinformation.
Mr. McConnell expressed regret at the decision and said it could be a partisan concession.
“I wish these reforms had been considered at a time when there was less controversy, less partisan division, and their merits were weighed,” McConnell said Friday on National Public Radio.
He warned that the move could be seen as Mr. Mehta “bowing to political pressure,” a reference to Mr. Zuckerberg’s efforts to court Mr. Trump.
His comments echoed comments made by Meta employees on internal chat message boards.
Several other tech titans, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, will take up their positions next Monday. He has tried to listen to President Trump as he prepares to take the oath, and has done so in recent weeks.
McConnell said neither he nor the board was informed of the policy change in advance.
However, a person familiar with the matter told The New York Times that Mehta executives briefed Trump campaign officials before making the announcement public.
The Post has reached out to Mehta for comment.
Established in May 2020, the Oversight Board is Blue Ribbon’s quasi-independent panel of legal, human rights, journalism, and technology experts who review content removal decisions and make decisions regarding the moderation of specific content. Make policy recommendations.
Meanwhile, the platform’s decision to end its fact-checking program and roll back its hate speech regulations raises brand safety on the $1.5 trillion tech giant’s platform, which derives the majority of its $135 billion annual revenue from advertising. There are questions about this.
Fergus McCullum, chief executive of advertising agency TBWA\MCR, told the Financial Times: “Some brands will already be thinking carefully about their plans and this poses commercial challenges for both parties. There is no doubt that will happen.”
Risk-averse advertisers are wary of lifting restrictions on politically sensitive topics like immigration and gender.
Lou Pascalis, CEO of marketing consultancy AJL Advisory, told the FT that the change is “creating headwinds for marketers”, with some “relying less” on meta.
Some advertisers remain cautious, while others believe platform performance metrics will ultimately determine their response.
“The cold, hard truth is that advertisers only care about hurting their numbers,” Alex Cheeseman, Outbrain’s head of enterprise, told the FT.
“If performance is consistent, no one will lose sleep over ‘where’ or ‘how’ their ads appear.”
Meta announced on Tuesday that it would be phasing out a fact-checking program introduced to combat the spread of misinformation on its platform.
Zuckerberg justified the decision as part of a broader strategy to embrace “free expression”, saying the 2024 election was a “cultural tipping point” that required change.
“It’s time to get back to the roots of freedom of expression,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement.
He acknowledged that the old policy led to “too many mistakes and too much censorship” and that the new approach, similar to X’s “Community Notes” feature, relies on users to correct misinformation. It was acknowledged that this was the case.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that the new system would “catch less malicious material,” but argued that it would also reduce the unintentional removal of legitimate posts and accounts.
“We will also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally delete,” he said.
Critics, including McConnell, have voiced skepticism about the effectiveness of the new approach. “
“I’m not very confident that this is a solution. There’s really no silver bullet to solve this problem,” McConnell said.
He also called the timing of the announcement and its thinking “bad” and suggested it could be seen as aligned with a political agenda.
The decision follows a series of actions by Zuckerberg that critics have linked to Trump’s influence.
Zuckerberg reportedly dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.
Last Monday, Mr. Zuckerberg announced that Mr. Trump ally Dana White would be added to Meta’s board of directors.
In an interview with Joe Rogan on Friday, Zuckerberg revealed that Biden administration officials pressured Mehta to delete posts questioning coronavirus vaccines. Mehta’s boss described a heated exchange with White House staffers who “screamed” and “abused” company executives.
As Meta moves away from fact-checking, questions remain about the platform’s ability to combat misinformation while promoting freedom of expression.
With the 2024 election cycle already underway, the decision reignites debate about the role of tech companies in moderating political content and the fine line between moderation and censorship.
For now, Meta plans to rely on its user base to flag and address misinformation.
