The Looming Crisis: Meta, Misinformation, and Public Trust

Meta’s jaw-dropping announcement that it is ending its third-party fact-checking program is likely to trigger increased activity from fake accounts and troll farms, which specialize in disseminating intentional falsehoods.

The social media giant’s decision to end its fact-checking initiatives raises serious concerns about a potential flood of online disinformation and its broader societal implications. Fact-checkers have been instrumental in helping users recognize fake news and other false information by flagging potentially misleading content and offering links to credible sources.

Rather than removing content, the system provided users with the context necessary to make informed choices. Meta, not the fact-checkers, made the ultimate decision to remove content.

A Self-fulfilling Prophecy

“The discourse surrounding Meta’s decision may inadvertently become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and public concerns of wild spreads of disinformation bombing the users of Meta’s social media platforms might act as an invitation to troll farms to test the new boundaries,” says Vaidotas Šedys, Chief Risk Officer at Oxylabs. “Henceforth, the transition period will be precarious, requiring heightened caution from users, policymakers, and Meta itself.”

Meta’s shareholders are the primary beneficiaries of this shift, noted Šedys. Removing fact-checking is expected to encourage more user activity and engagement —critical metrics for boosting the bottom line. However, troll farms, which are fuelled by exploiting divisive and contentious topics, are perfectly positioned to exploit the platform’s weaknesses.

By stoking public discontent, particularly on politically sensitive issues, they will find many opportunities to advance their agendas. This highlights the risk of Meta’s platforms becoming arenas for disinformation campaigns, potentially leading to far-reaching societal consequences.

The Subversion of Democracy

For one, misinformation significantly threatens democracy by distorting public discourse and undermining trust in institutions. By spreading false narratives, it manipulates public opinion, fuels division, and erodes the shared understanding necessary for informed decision-making.

In democracies, where citizens depend on accurate information to hold leaders accountable and participate in governance, misinformation can skew elections, polarize societies, and weaken the foundations of democratic processes. This erosion of truth threatens societal cohesion and empowers malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities for their own gain.

Viktoras Daukšas, Head of Debunk.org, a Lithuania-based disinformation analysis center and independent think tank, partner of Oxylabs Project 4beta, added, “Meta is following in the footsteps of X and poses the risk of creating an informational vacuum that could become a tool for manipulation, especially as state-sponsored trolls from countries like Russia or China gain unrestricted access to platform content. This chaos could severely hinder efforts to combat disinformation in the US and undermine the public’s ability to distinguish trustworthy information from false narratives.”

Compromising Public Safety

Restricting access for researchers and entities analyzing disinformation may be an attempt by platforms to avoid communication and legal challenges,  added Daukšas. However, this strategy severely compromises public safety and the quality of available information.

In Europe, such measures could breach the Digital Services Act, which mandates platforms to ensure safety within the EU. Suppose Meta’s decision to eliminate fact-checkers extends to Europe. In that case, the European Commission will likely take decisive action to safeguard information integrity and prevent these practices from setting a dangerous precedent.

“This situation reflects broader debates about platform responsibility and the influence of political shifts on corporate decisions. The European Union will defend users’ rights with strict regulatory measures, ensuring that similar decisions do not set a dangerous precedent,” Daukšas ends.