Technology
Services
Resources
In a surprise announcement, Mark Zuckerberg revealed that Meta will stop using fact checkers for content posted to Facebook, Instagram, or Threads. Instead, they will be employing “Community Notes” akin to those used at X, where Elon Musk has outsourced content moderation to its users.
Zuckerberg and Meta’s new chief global-affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, explained the rationale for their decision in a blog post published January 7, saying the fact-checking program that they launched in the wake of the Donald Trump’s first election victory back in 2016 was "too politically biased" and had damaged user trust.
When it comes to the kind of content that Meta now deems permissible for posting on its platforms, the company has also updated its Hateful Content guidelines to allow users to post controversial and/or offensive content that was previously banned, including “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.” The revised guidelines have also eliminated explicit mention of other previously-banned content, granting tacit approval to posts referring to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it.’”
In addition to the content moderation changes, the company also announced it would be updating its algorithms to once again prioritize political content in its users' feeds.
Together, these moves have the potential to transform the user experience on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads and have left both users and advertisers holding their collective breaths, anticipating the consequences of the changes while hoping for the best—and preparing for the worst.
Why is Meta taking these actions? Where to begin.
Per the company’s official position, “We've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship,” said Zuckerberg. “The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.”
Going beyond the company’s official explanation, Meta’s policy pivot appears to be motivated by a number of different factors—the most obvious of which is the incoming Trump Administration, as alluded to in Zuckerberg’s video message and affirmed by Trump himself at a press conference shortly after the announcement. Meta has had a tumultuous past with the former and future president, having suspended him from its platforms following the events of January 6, 2021, and is seeking to curry favor with the new administration.
Zuckerberg also made reference to his hope of working with Trump "to push back on governments around the world," specifically mentioning Europe and what he called its "ever-increasing number of laws" and "institutionalizing censorship." Given Meta's many legal issues in the EU, which have resulted in nearly 3 billion euros in fines to date, the callout seems especially pointed and could signal a new twist in the advertising industry's ongoing regulatory saga.
Meta also revealed plans to promote "civic" (aka political) content on its platforms after previously deprecating it back in 2021. This, too, is likely to appeal to the incoming administration, but it comes with an additional benefit: Political content tends to drive strong engagement, and the company may well be using this moment as an opportunity to re-prioritize these posts in users’ feeds to reap those benefits.
“Meta’s hope is that this change boosts conversation and engagement on the platform,” said Colleen Fielder, Group VP, Social and Partner Marketing Solutions at Basis. “If that proves true and time spent on their platforms increases, that could be a positive for advertisers.”
Additionally, Zuckerberg announced that Meta’s trust and safety team will be relocated from California to Texas, saying that it would “help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content.” In truth, Meta is likely making the move for both optics and for cost-saving purposes, avoiding California’s higher taxes while catering to Republicans—who will now control both the White House and Congress—by relocating teams to a tried-and-true red state.
“From Meta’s perspective, this is potentially a win-win-win situation,” said Amy Rumpler, SVP, Search & Social Media Services at Basis. “Meta will benefit from cost savings and reorganization, the government will be appeased, and users will still have the ability to inform others if they believe content is misleading or misinformation. The key difference is a separate group of people won’t have the same amount of control around removing content they deem as inappropriate.”
The elimination of third-party fact checkers and weakened Hateful Content guidelines introduce new brand safety risks on Meta, threatening to exacerbate what has long been an area of concern (and source of criticism) for the social media giant. However, it remains to be seen whether this new system will be meaningfully different (or meaningfully worse) than the old one—at least as far as advertisers are concerned.
The risk, of course, is that a rise in harmful posts could mar the experience of using Meta's platforms—and, in particular, Facebook—to the point that users flee, further accelerating social media fragmentation and undermining one of marketers' most reliable resources. But for many advertisers, Facebook and Instagram remain essential channels whose reach extends to virtually every audience, so until there is a user exodus, most marketers will stay put, instead keeping a weary by watchful eye on how things develop.
Crucially, Meta also noted that, unlike X, they are planning to focus on maintaining strong relationships with advertisers and that they have empowered advertisers with brand safety tools to navigate this new environment.
“Policy changes aside, they do still have a brand safety system in place which allows advertisers to avoid alignment with content that falls in specific categories of sensitivity—which, if advertisers aren’t already using by default, they should consider implementing now,” said Rumpler.
Additionally, the re-prioritization of political content on its platforms—likely fueled by both a desire to appeal to Trump as well as the knowledge that this content drives especially high engagement (and that it did so during the previous Trump administration)—could provide Meta with an engagement boost that attracts users and, at least temporarily, intrigues advertisers.
Altogether, in the short term, the changes are unlikely to change much for marketers, but the industry will need to pay careful attention to how users respond. While Facebook and Instagram are fairly ubiquitous, their new policies could lead to very different reactions from different communities across the US. Some groups may grow more engaged on Meta platforms, but others could feel alienated or threatened to the point that they leave Facebook or Instagram altogether. Brands should keep a close eye on how their audiences react in the months ahead, monitoring ad performance carefully while keeping tabs on engagement trends—and, of course, leveraging brand safety tools as effectively as possible.