Good Riddance, Facebook ‘Fact-Checkers’

A preview of my first piece at Commonplace, about the harm of the old content moderation regime at social media giants

I wrote last week about Commonplace, the new magazine about what matters in America that I’m managing editor of, so I thought it would be valuable to share with you my first piece for the mag, “Good Riddance, Facebook ‘Fact-Checkers’” In it, I revisit some of the worst abuses of social media content moderation to bid a fond farewell to the old, fact-checker-reliant system of addressing false or misleading posts at Facebook, Twitter, and beyond.

To read the full piece, head over to Commonplace.org. Here’s a few paragraphs to whet your appetite.

---

Good Riddance, Facebook ‘Fact-Checkers’

Previous content moderation policies at social media giants buried, not defended, the truth

Few topics set social media abuzz more than changes to the rules that govern how people can actually use those social media platforms. Last week, Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s (née Facebook) CEO, announced that the platform would change its content-moderation approach—the way the site deals with posts that are, according to at least someone, not true—abandoning an “expert”-driven process.

Zuckerberg announced that this system (as well as ending their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts) was being replaced by one that relied on the community to police content, similar to X (née Twitter). Offending posts would be tagged with a digital scarlet letter and an explanation of why it was disputed.

Previously, Facebook and Twitter (before Elon Musk’s purchase) relied on a heavier-handed system of fact-checking user posts, relying on “expert,” “independent” “fact-checkers” to determine the veracity of various claims. These groups were mostly newspapers, predominantly legacy, mainstream publications but including some conservative ones, as well as institutions whose sole focus is fact-checking. These groups are notorious for their left-wing bias, particularly around elections, frequently labeling posts supporting conservative efforts as inaccurate while ignoring dubious claims in the opposite political direction.

As should surprise no one, the “experts” who no longer get to decide what constitutes reality are in an uproar—particularly within the pages of the outlets who were once the vaunted fact-police. The New York Times published a piece highlighting their objections, (seriously) titled “Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False.” It alleged that the issue wasn’t the behavior of the noble fact-checkers but from Facebook. The facts they relied on couldn’t themselves be biased, they protested, just what might be done with them. Now the American people would be left defenseless against conspiracy theories and other lies. The sentiment was common beyond the Times, too. The Washington Post, NPR, ABC News, TIME, and others were quickly out with articles raising the specter of increased disinformation.

But the Times and their fellows invert the real problem with content moderation.