**Meta Shifts from Fact-Checkers to Community Notes amid Political Pressure**

In a bid to enhance user freedom of speech, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledges the political bias of fact-checkers while facing backlash from anti-hate speech campaigners. This controversial maneuver aligns with Trump's criticism of perceived censorship on social media platforms.

Meta Platforms Inc. has announced a dramatic shift in its content moderation strategy by eliminating independent fact-checkers from Facebook and Instagram. The change will replace the current verification system with a method called "community notes," whereby users will be tasked with evaluating the accuracy of posts. This decision, revealed in a video by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, was partly driven by the perception that third-party moderators exhibited political bias.

Trump's criticism of Meta's traditional fact-checking process, which his supporters labeled as censorship of conservative viewpoints, has coincided with this shift. The incoming president expressed approval of Zuckerberg's move during a press conference, hinting at a positive relationship between Meta and the Trump administration.

Joel Kaplan, Meta's newly appointed global affairs chief and a prominent Republican, stated that the earlier reliance on independent moderators, while well-meaning, often led to unintended censorship. In response, organizations like Global Witness have expressed concern that this changes reflect a strategic effort to align with Trump's administration, potentially easing the spread of misinformation and hate speech on the platform.

Historically, Meta's fact-checking initiative, initiated in 2016, directed questionable content to verified organizations to ensure accuracy. Posts identified as inaccurate were demoted and tagged with labels to inform users. Moving forward, community notes will allow users to add context and clarifications to contentious posts, though this approach echoes a similar system recently introduced by rival social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk.

In response to lingering concerns about harmful content, Meta has assured users that existing policies prohibiting content promoting self-harm will remain unchanged. However, the decision to adopt user-led moderation indicates a troubling departure from addressing disinformation and hate while reflecting a trend toward greater freedom of speech, at least in the U.S. context.

Meta’s strategy to lessen intervention marks a significant departure from global regulatory standards, particularly in Europe, where digital platforms are being compelled to adopt stricter content management protocols. Observers suggest the shift could yield both positive impacts regarding user engagement and negative consequences through diminished oversight of harmful content.

Zuckerberg remains confident that this approach will favor free expression. Still, critics warn that the reduction in moderation could lead to increased misinformation and a potential spike in disinformation-related incidents across the platform. The recent hiring of figures closer to Trump, coupled with generous financial donations to his inauguration efforts, have further fueled concerns about political influence in content management choices, signaling a contentious evolution within the landscape of social media governance.