In one fell swoop, Meta enters its ‘post-truth’ era

“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritising speech.”

The company will shift to relying on user-led community notes like those on X, formerly known as Twitter. That process involves users themselves providing context or fact-checking posts, rather than anyone official.

In another move ripped from the Musk playbook, Meta is also shifting its moderation team from California to Texas, in changes Zuckerberg admitted will catch “less bad stuff” on his platforms.

There are signs that the move didn’t involve a lot of advance planning. It wasn’t telegraphed to the company’s fact-checkers, some of whom had been there for a decade.

Lead Stories fact-checker Maarten Schenk told Forbes the first he learned of Meta’s plan to scrap its partnership with independent journalists was through a press release. “We were not notified in advance so it was just, boom this is ending,” he said.

Existing fact-checking deals with international newsrooms and charities, including in Australia, are expected to run until the end of the year.

It comes as Silicon Valley jostles to curry favour with Trump, partly in the hopes that it can win a lighter touch from regulators.

Last week Meta tapped Bush-era Republican to serve as its head of global head of policy, replacing former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg.

Then, just this week, the company named Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White – a long-time Trump supporter – to its board of directors. Meta has also donated to Trump’s inauguration fund, a first for the company.

What Zuck is promising might sound appealing to some: A return of the internet to its roots, which was designed to allow for free speech and open debate. That’s a naive outlook, however, that doesn’t reflect what the internet is in 2025.

In 1995, and even in 2004 when Facebook was invented, the internet was a much simpler place. It was a place for Flash games, cheesy animations, recipes, Hotmail, and message boards.

Social media has made the internet a much more complex – and arguably worse – place, littered with toxicity, privacy intrusions, child pornography, fake news and abuse.

For Zuckerberg to enact changes that will catch “less bad stuff” on his platforms is a big step in the wrong direction, particularly when so much momentum has gathered globally about tweaking social media for the better.

In Australia, the debate around the social media age ban has been contentious but at a minimum, it’s stirred a productive conversation about the pros and cons of social media, particularly as it relates to the mental health of young people.

Social media is already a dumpster fire at the best of times. To further make it a Wild West of misinformation will make it an even less appealing place than it already was. And for Zuck to make that move to please the political whims of Donald Trump should be viewed as an abdication of the serious responsibility that comes with operating a platform used by 3 billion people.

For Zuckerberg to highlight ‘gender’ and ‘immigration’ as topics that will be less restricted should be worrying, particularly for minority groups who might be directly affected by hateful posts, like immigrants or LGBT users.

Calling women ‘household objects’ will now be permissible under Meta’s new guidelines, as will calling transgender people ‘freaks’.

Facebook, and social media more broadly, are now firmly in their ‘post-truth’ era. And its billions of users will likely be worse off as a result.