President Biden Calls Meta’s Decision To End Fact-Checking In The US ‘Deeply Shameful’

On January 10, 2025, U.S. President Joe Biden publicly criticized Meta’s decision to replace its stringent fact-checking program with a more lenient Community Notes system. Speaking at the White House, Biden described the move as “completely contrary to American values,” emphasizing the importance of truth-telling. The president’s remarks reflect growing concerns about the potential impact of reduced content moderation on public discourse and societal stability.

“I think it’s really shameful. Telling the truth matters,” Biden stated, as reported by AFP.

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) also expressed alarm over Meta’s policy change. In a letter addressed to Meta’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, the IFCN warned of “real-world harm” if the new policy is implemented globally.

“Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence, and even genocide,” the letter cautioned. The network further rejected Zuckerberg’s claim that fact-checkers were “too politically biased,” pointing out that Meta had previously praised their effectiveness.

Zuckerberg Defends the Move

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended the decision during a recent interview with podcaster Joe Rogan. Describing the traditional fact-checking program as “something out of 1984,” referencing George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Zuckerberg argued that the program no longer aligns with current societal needs.

Zuckerberg further criticized the program for “destroying so much trust,” particularly in the United States, and regretted giving “too much deference” to traditional media narratives. He also faulted the fact-checking initiative for fueling claims that social media disinformation influenced the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

International Backlash and Concerns

The backlash against Meta’s decision is not limited to the United States. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, warned of “real-world consequences” if harmful content and hate speech are allowed to spread unchecked. Turk emphasized that regulating such content cannot be dismissed as censorship.

Brazil has also taken a firm stance, giving Meta 72 hours to clarify its new fact-checking policy and its plans to safeguard citizens’ rights. Attorney General Jorge Messias has threatened legal and judicial actions should Meta fail to provide satisfactory explanations.

The shift in Meta’s content moderation strategy has reignited debates about the balance between free speech and the regulation of harmful content. Proponents of the new policy argue that reduced intervention promotes free expression and minimizes corporate influence over public discourse. Critics, however, contend that it risks amplifying misinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content.

A Global Turning Point?

Meta’s decision to overhaul its content moderation practices has significant implications for global discourse. As governments, international organizations, and civil society groups raise concerns, the question remains: can platforms balance the ideals of free speech with the responsibility to prevent harm? The coming months may determine whether this shift represents progress or a perilous regression in content moderation and accountability.

Read More : ‘Save America’: Elon Musk’s Biographer Claims Tesla CEO Is ‘Going Mad’