Nobel Peace Prize laureate and journalist Maria Ressa has expressed deep concern over Meta’s decision to end fact-checking on its platforms and remove restrictions on certain topics. She warned that the move could have dire consequences for journalism, democracy, and social media users worldwide, calling it a step toward “extremely dangerous times.”
Meta’s Decision Sparks Global Concerns
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced changes to its content moderation policies, including replacing fact-checkers in the United States with a crowd-sourced moderating feature similar to “community notes” used by X (formerly Twitter). The company also revealed plans to ease restrictions on sensitive topics like immigration and gender.
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder and CEO, framed the decision as a commitment to free speech. However, Ressa strongly disagreed, stating, “Mark Zuckerberg says it’s a free speech issue – that’s completely wrong. Only if you’re profit-driven can you claim that; only if you want power and money can you claim that. This is about safety.”
Ressa criticized the removal of fact-checkers, warning it could lead to a “world without facts,” which she described as “a world that’s right for a dictator.”
Global Rollout of Changes In Meta
While Meta plans to retain fact-checkers outside the U.S. for now, the broader changes to content moderation are set to be implemented globally. This shift has raised fears of misinformation spreading unchecked, especially in regions with weaker regulatory frameworks or lower media literacy.
Ressa, who co-founded the investigative news site Rappler and has faced multiple legal battles for her journalism in the Philippines, pledged to fight for “information integrity.” She stated, “This is a pivotal year for journalism survival. We’ll do all we can to make sure that happens.”
History of Social Media-Driven Harm
Ressa’s concerns are not without precedent. In 2021, Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen revealed how the platform lacked safety controls in non-English language markets, making it a tool for human traffickers and armed groups in places like Ethiopia.
In the Philippines, Amnesty International has accused authorities of using Facebook to “red-tag” activists, branding them as “communist rebels” or “terrorists,” thereby endangering their lives.
Facebook has also faced criticism for its role in enabling violence. In Myanmar, the platform admitted in 2018 that it had been used to incite violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority. Despite claims of proactive measures, such as detecting 99% of hate speech, incidents of misinformation and harmful content persist.
The Cost of Prioritizing Profit Over Safety By Meta
Meta has defended its record, stating that it invested $13 billion in user safety. However, Ressa and other critics argue that these efforts fall short, especially in the global south. “What Facebook is going to do is get rid of [journalistic standards] and then allow lies, anger, fear, and hate to infect every single person on the platform,” Ressa warned.
Frances Haugen echoed similar concerns in 2021, saying, “I did what I thought was necessary to save the lives of people, especially in the global south, who I think are being endangered by Facebook’s prioritization of profits over people.”
A Threat to Journalism and Democracy
Ressa rejected Zuckerberg’s claim that fact-checkers were politically biased and had “destroyed more trust than they’ve created.” She emphasized the importance of journalistic standards and ethics, which she said are being undermined by Meta’s new approach.
The decision comes at a time when Ressa, a staunch advocate for freedom of expression, continues her fight against disinformation. Her work has earned her international recognition, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021.
As Meta moves forward with its controversial policy changes, the global community watches closely. For journalists like Ressa, the stakes are high. “We are entering a world without facts,” she said, urging action to safeguard the integrity of information and the health of democracies.
