From moderation to chaos: Meta’s fact-checking and the battle over truth and free speech

Following Zuckerberg’s decision to terminate third-party fact-checking and his association of fact-checkers with censorship, this article examines how platforms respond to falsehoods post-debunking and explores fact-checkers’ views on effective content moderation, particularly regarding content removal or reduced visibility. A comparative content analysis of 2053 debunking articles by 16 Meta partners across 8 European and Latin American countries reveals that most false content was labeled or remained online, with deletion occurring in approximately 30% of cases—though it remains unclear whether the removal was carried out by Facebook or by the original spreaders. In addition to 30 expert interviews, the study finds that fact-checkers prioritize counter-speech and transparency, rejecting a permissive “anything goes” stance. Some support removals in cases involving incitement to violence, illegality, or harmful health misinformation. Most agree that freedom of expression should not guarantee algorithmic amplification. Concerns were also raised about the politicization and potential manipulation of Community Notes.