Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
A prominent fact-checking organization, Lead Stories, criticized Meta’s decision to revamp its content moderation approach, expressing surprise and disappointment in an article reacting to the news.
“Lead Stories was surprised and disappointed to first learn through media reports and a press release about the end of the Meta Third-Party Fact-Checking Partnership, of which Lead Stories has been a part since 2019,” wrote Lead Stories editor Maarten Schenk on Tuesday. The reaction followed Meta’s announcement of significant changes to its fact-checking process aimed at “restoring free expression.”
Since 2019, Lead Stories, a Facebook fact-checking partner employing several former CNN staffers, including Alan Duke and Ed Payne, has played a critical role in moderating political content on the platform. However, Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking program signals a shift toward a less restrictive model of content moderation.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained the rationale behind the decision in a video message, saying, “We tried in good faith to address concerns about misinformation without becoming arbiters of truth. But fact-checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they created, especially in the U.S.”
The statement drew sharp criticism from Lead Stories. “What political bias?” the organization asked in its response, noting the requirements Meta imposed for joining its fact-checking program, including adherence to the International Fact-Checking Network’s (IFCN) Code of Principles.
“In all the years we have been part of the partnership, we or the IFCN never received any complaints from Meta about any political bias, so we were quite surprised by this statement,” the article said.
Concerns About Meta’s New Moderation Approach
Meta plans to transition to a model inspired by X’s “Community Notes” system, which allows users to provide context to posts. However, Lead Stories expressed skepticism, citing flaws in the system.
“Community Notes on X are often slow to appear, sometimes downright inaccurate, and unlikely to address controversial posts because of users’ inability to reach consensus,” Lead Stories argued. “Ultimately, the truth doesn’t care about consensus or agreement: the shape of the Earth stays the same even if social media users can’t agree on it.”
The fact-checking organization also criticized the lack of transparency in the Community Notes system, contrasting it with the stringent standards enforced by the IFCN. “Fact-checkers are required to be fully transparent about who they are, who funds them, and what methodology and sources they use,” Lead Stories wrote.
Maarten Schenk defended the role of fact-checkers in combating misinformation, stating, “Fact-checking is about adding verified and sourced information so people can make up their mind about what to believe. It is an essential part of free speech.”
Impact of Meta’s Decision on Lead Stories
Despite the end of its partnership with Meta, Lead Stories intends to continue its work. Alan Duke acknowledged that the organization would need to scale back some operations without Meta’s support. “We are global, with most of our business now outside the USA. We publish in eight languages other than English, which is what will be affected,” he said.
Conservative Response to Lead Stories’ Position
Some conservatives responded with schadenfreude over Meta’s decision. British-American commentator Ian Haworth said, “Of all the fact-checking companies, Lead Stories is the worst. Couldn’t be happier that they’ll soon be circling the drain.”
Others, such as Politifact’s executive director Aaron Sharockman, issued strong rebukes against Meta. “The decision to remove independent journalists from Facebook’s content moderation program in the United States has nothing to do with free speech or censorship,” Sharockman said, suggesting Meta’s platforms were the actual arbiters of censorship, not fact-checkers.
In closing, Schenk reaffirmed Lead Stories’ commitment to fact-checking despite the challenges ahead. “Just because it’s now trending without a fact-checking label still won’t make it true,” he wrote.
