President Joe Biden delivered remarks from the White House where he reacted to Meta’s decision to eliminate fact-checkers, calling the move “really shameful.”
The decision by Meta, the parent company of Facebook, to discontinue the use of fact-checkers has sparked widespread concern about the spread of misinformation on its platforms. “In a time when the truth is so critical, cutting off the very tools that help keep misinformation in check is deeply irresponsible,” Biden stated. This development comes amidst ongoing debates about the role of social media companies in policing false information and the impact such content can have on public discourse and democratic processes.
Meta has yet to respond publicly to the president’s remarks or the concerns raised by other critics regarding potential increases in misinformation due to the absence of fact-checkers. Last month, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, decided to make significant changes to the company’s approach to online speech after visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump in November.
Zuckerberg aimed to relax Meta’s speech policies and tasked a small team to implement these changes within weeks. The decision marks a departure from Meta’s usual practices, where policy changes typically involve extensive consultations with employees, civic leaders, and other stakeholders and can take months to materialize. This time, Zuckerberg maintained a tight circle that included a handful of top policy and communications executives.
He directed the initiative through a series of Zoom meetings, conference calls, and late-night group chats, often conducted while balancing his personal commitments. By New Year’s Day, Zuckerberg was prepared to publicly announce the changes. Most of Meta’s 72,000 employees learned about the new policies at the same time as the general public.
Meta declared it would loosen restrictions on discussions about contentious social issues such as immigration, end its fact-checking program aimed at curbing misinformation, and increase the volume of political content in user feeds. The reaction to these moves has been mixed. President-elect Trump and conservatives have praised the decision, while President Biden and fact-checking organizations have criticized it for potentially increasing the spread of misinformation.
L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy groups have also expressed concern, fearing an increase in online and offline harassment as a result of the relaxed policies. The implications of these policy shifts are vast and the discourse around them is just beginning to unfold. Meta is borrowing a page from Elon Musk’s X on free speech and censorship, but advertisers aren’t hitting the panic button — yet.
For now, they’ve brushed off Meta’s decision to scrap its U.S. fact-checking program in favor of a community notes system reminiscent of X’s and to loosen restrictions on contentious topics like immigration and gender identity. Instead, marketers are in wait-and-see mode, hoping for clearer guidance on what content Meta will still police. So far, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has offered them little beyond vague assurances, leaving the details up in the air.
What is clear, though, is that this marks Meta’s most significant shake-up to its political content policies in years, coinciding with Zuckerberg’s apparent effort to mend fences with the incoming Trump administration. In doing so, Zuckerberg is edging closer to Musk’s laissez-faire playbook — hardly surprising, given Musk’s new role as a Trump advisor. Marketers understand this political calculus, even if they’re not entirely on board.
They are, however, questioning its broader implications for how people communicate on Meta’s platforms. Will reduced censorship and fewer checks on misinformation create a space for open dialogue?
Biden challenges Meta’s misinformation stance
Or will it turn these platforms into battlegrounds where the lines between discourse and chaos blur, while heated debates and unchecked narratives thrive? Critics might call this alarmist, dismissing concerns as resistance to the dismantling of the left-leaning oversight apparatus that has shaped the digital landscape in recent years. Still, Musk’s X serves as a cautionary tale.
Far from curbing misinformation, the hands-off approach has amplified it, turning his platform into a battleground where truth and fiction clash, with attention — not accuracy — deciding the winner. “At some point, brands will have to decide if reach is more important than their own alignment with the general sentiment that’s begun to metastasize within these platforms,” said Stephen Beck, founder and CEO of media agency Engine Digital. When advertisers faced similar concerns on X, those worries snowballed, leading many to pull spending entirely.
But Meta is a different beast. Unlike X, Meta has always been commercially driven and seen as a far superior ad platform, making it unlikely advertisers will abandon it as quickly, even if the stakes continue to rise. “I expect Meta will ensure that the rhetoric is far from what we typically see on X,” said Jeremy Goldman, senior director of marketing & commerce, and tech briefings at eMarketer.
“We noticed that when Meta began restricting political ads and ‘issues’ ads — it’s so big that it wants to avoid headaches that aren’t worth it.”
For marketers, those headaches aren’t worth it either. Meta’s scale makes it too valuable to abandon outright, and they’ve long accepted that social media is a messy place to build brands. What really matters is ensuring their ads are kept away from inappropriate or harmful content.
As for the controversial conversations surrounding them? That’s just the cost of doing business in the digital age. “The question comes down to whether a company’s ads appear alongside offensive content,” said Jim Misener, president of brand consultancy 50,000feet.
This debate, however, may intensify around Threads in the coming months. After all, this “Muskification” of Meta stands in stark contrast to Threads’ original promise. When Threads launched in July 2023, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who oversees Threads, described it as a “less angry space” for sharing ideas.
But now, that vision feels increasingly out of reach as Meta’s broader strategy shifts toward Musk’s more volatile model. “It’s going to fundamentally alter what Threads’ USP was,” said James Kirkham, co-founder of brand consultancy Iconic. “This was the alternative.
It was a softer, warmer, more friendly place. The changes that Zuckerberg is talking about are definitely going to erode that key differentiator.”
Meta’s pivot toward Musk’s playbook signals the beginning of a new chapter in one of media’s most pertinent narratives — one defined by the erosion of traditional gatekeeping and the rise of platforms that prioritize engagement over accountability. Call it the Muskification of media: a world where virality trumps veracity and platforms increasingly shape public discourse without the burden of oversight.
In this new era, the challenge isn’t just about brand safety for marketers but navigating an increasingly unpredictable environment. They’re having to weigh the value of reach against the risks and rewards of being associated with platforms that define culture in such uncharted ways.
