Mark Zuckerberg has recently announced that Facebook will be discontinuing its fact-checking program, citing that the system, designed to combat fake news, has “destroyed more trust than it has created.”
Since its introduction in 2016, Facebook collaborated with over 100 independent fact-checkers globally to review viral content and flag potentially false information. These fact-checkers, working in various countries, helped to label stories that were deemed misleading or false. However, Zuckerberg expressed that the initiative, which was launched in response to the 2016 presidential election, had grown “too politically biased” and often made mistakes.
While Facebook’s fact-checkers helped dispel countless fake news stories, there have been several notable errors. One of the most controversial incidents occurred in 2020, when Facebook, along with Twitter, suppressed an article by the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Initially, Facebook reduced the article’s visibility, citing concerns about Russian disinformation. Later, the company reversed its decision, acknowledging that the reporting was not linked to Russian disinformation. Zuckerberg admitted, “We shouldn’t have demoted the story.”
Another misstep involved Facebook’s labeling of the theory that COVID-19 might have leaked from a Chinese lab. When the New York Post published an opinion piece about the theory, Facebook flagged it as “false information.” Later, doubts arose regarding the virus’s origins, with a 2023 U.S. intelligence report acknowledging the uncertainty.
In 2021, Facebook also faced criticism over its handling of a report from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that alleged poor clinical practices in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trials. Facebook fact-checkers added a warning to the report, claiming it was misleading, while the BMJ stood by its findings, calling out the fact-checkers for potentially hindering good journalism.
In addition to these high-profile instances, there were several cases where Facebook’s fact-checking efforts inadvertently blocked valuable health information. For example, in 2021, posts from the Cochrane Library, a respected global healthcare database, were removed for disputing false claims about treatments for COVID-19. One of the removed posts highlighted that there was no evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19, a drug that had been falsely promoted as a treatment during the pandemic.
The fact-checking program also faced backlash over its treatment of mask efficacy debates. A Reason Magazine article questioning one of the studies used to justify mask mandates in schools was labeled as “false information.” Facebook later acknowledged the error and removed the label.
Despite these controversies, Facebook’s fact-checkers defend their efforts. Chris Morris, the CEO of Full Fact, a UK-based fact-checking organization, strongly rejected accusations of political bias, stating that they strive for impartiality and rigor in fact-checking claims across the political spectrum. He argued that fact-checkers are committed to promoting free speech and good information, and that locking fact-checkers out of the conversation would not help fight misinformation.
This ongoing debate highlights the complexities of moderating information on social media platforms, where the line between censorship and protecting truth is often blurred.
