Meta Platforms, Inc.โs decision to scrap its fact-checking program across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp has alarmed experts. They warned that Meta’s decision could amplify disinformation ahead of the Philippines’ midterm elections in May.
Karl Patrick R. Mendoza, associate professor at the Polytechnic University of the Philippinesโ Department of Communication Research, believes the decision exacerbates the politicization of social media in the country.
โMetaโs move underscores a critical issue: the perception of truth is influenced not only by information accuracy but also by the political and cultural lenses through which people interpret facts,โ he shared in a Facebook Messenger chat.
On Tuesday, Meta announced its intention to shift away from third-party fact-checking, emphasizing a return to its โroots.โ
โWeโre going to focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms,โ Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted on his Facebook page.
However, critics argue this decision undermines efforts to combat the spread of false information.
โFact-checking has never been a cure-all for misinformation, but its presence has been invaluable,โ said Jonathan de Santos, chairman of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, in a Viber message. โThis move makes it even harder for Filipinos to navigate the deluge of online information.โ
Impact on Filipinosโ News Consumption
Social media remains a primary news source for 62% of Filipinos, according to a 2024 survey by Publicus Asia. Removing fact-checkers, De Santos warned, could reinforce ongoing efforts to discredit reliable news outlets.
โLegitimate news sources must now be even stricter in verifying information and more transparent about their processes,โ he said.
Metaโs fact-checking initiative began in 2016, following criticism of Facebookโs role in spreading false information during the U.S. elections. But Zuckerberg argued that fact-checkers often came across as politically biased.
โTheyโve done more harm than good by eroding trust,โ he claimed, suggesting that Community Notesโa feature allowing users to add context to postsโwould replace the program.
However, researchers have criticized this tool for being unreliable.
Fact-Checking vs. Free Speech
The notion that fact-checking curtails free speech is a misunderstanding, Mendoza said.
โFact-checkers donโt suppress opinions. Instead, they provide a corrective lens to help audiences critically assess information,โ he explained. He emphasized the need for a media environment that balances free speech with accountability.
โPlatforms must foster transparency in content promotion and give users more control over what they see,โ he added.
Mendoza also highlighted the deeper issue of โhegemonic narrativesโ shaping how facts are framed and understood, calling for platforms to address these structural imbalances.
Calls for Legislative Action
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a lawyer and senior research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center, criticized social media platforms for prioritizing profit over free speech.
โRevenue will always outweigh any commitment to free speech,โ he remarked via Facebook Messenger.
He called for the Philippine government to enact an anti-disinformation law. He argued the law could protect free speech while holding platforms accountable for the spread of false information.
As Meta shifts its priorities, the spotlight turns to how governments, journalists, and social media users will address the growing challenge of disinformation in an increasingly polarized digital landscape.
About The Author
