A top Meta official blasted CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to discontinue fact-checking on Facebook, Instagram and Threads — saying the social media mogul was “buckling to political pressure” ahead of President-elect Donald Trump taking office.
The comments from Michael McConnell, the co-chair of Meta’s Oversight Board, comes as Zuckerberg’s abrupt pivot to loosen content moderation policies and do away with censorship has sparked unease among advertisers who fear a resurgence of harmful content and misinformation.
McConnell expressed dismay at the decision, describing it as a potential concession to partisanship.
“I would have liked to have seen these reforms laid out in less contentious and partisan times, so that they would be considered on the merits,” McConnell told National Public Radio on Friday.
He warned that the move might be perceived as Meta “buckling to political pressure” — a reference to Zuckerberg’s efforts to ingratiate himself with Trump.
His comments echoed those made by Meta employees on the company’s internal chat board.
Several other tech titans such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai have sought Trump’s ear in recent weeks he prepares to take the oath of office next Monday.
According to McConnell, neither he nor the board was informed about the policy shift ahead of time.
However, sources familiar with the matter told The New York Times that Meta executives allegedly briefed officials from Trump’s camp prior to the public announcement.
The Post has sought comment from Meta.
The oversight board, which was established in May 2020, is a blue-ribbon, quasi-independent panel comprised of experts in law, human rights, journalism, and technology who review decisions on content removal and make policy recommendations pertaining to moderation of certain content.
Meanwhile, the decision to end the platform’s fact-checking program and scale back hate speech restrictions is raising questions about brand safety on the $1.5 trillion tech giant’s platforms, which generate the majority of their $135 billion annual revenue from advertising.
“Some brands will already be assessing their plans carefully, and it’s no doubt going to become a commercial conundrum for both sides,” Fergus McCallum, CEO of advertising agency TBWA\MCR, told Financial Times.
Risk-averse advertisers are wary of lifting restrictions on politically sensitive topics like immigration and gender.
Lou Paskalis, CEO of marketing consultancy AJL Advisory, told FT that the shift “creates headwinds for marketers,” leading some to “reduce their reliance” on Meta.
While some advertisers remain cautious, others believe the platform’s performance metrics will ultimately determine their response.
“The cold, hard truth is advertisers will only care if it hurts their numbers,” Alex Cheeseman, head of enterprise at Outbrain, told FT.
“If performance remains steady, no one’s going to lose sleep over ‘where’ or ‘how’ their ads show up.”
Meta announced on Tuesday that it would phase out its fact-checking program, which was introduced to combat the spread of misinformation on its platforms.
Zuckerberg justified the decision as part of a broader strategy to embrace “free expression,” describing the 2024 election as a “cultural tipping point” that necessitated the change.
“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement.
He admitted that the old policy had led to “too many mistakes and too much censorship” and that the new approach would rely on users to correct misinformation, akin to X’s “Community Notes” feature.
While acknowledging that the new system would “catch less bad stuff,” Zuckerberg argued it would also reduce the unintentional removal of legitimate posts and accounts.
“We’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down,” he said.
Critics, including McConnell, have voiced skepticism about the efficacy of the new approach. “
I’m not overly confident that this is going to be the solution. There is really no magic bullet to this problem,” McConnell said.
He also described the timing of the announcement and its optics as “bad,” suggesting it could be viewed as aligning with political agendas.
The decision follows a series of actions by Zuckerberg that critics have linked to Trump’s influence.
Zuckerberg was reported to have dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.
Last Monday, Zuckerberg announced the addition of Dana White, a Trump ally, to Meta’s board.
In his interview with Joe Rogan on Friday, Zuckerberg revealed that Biden administration officials pressured Meta to remove posts questioning COVID-19 vaccines. The Meta boss described heated interactions with White House officials who “screamed” and “cursed” at company executives.
As Meta pivots away from fact-checking, questions remain about the platform’s ability to address misinformation while fostering free expression.
With the 2024 election cycle already underway, the decision has reignited debates about the role of tech companies in managing political content and the fine line between moderation and censorship.
For now, Meta will rely on its user base to help flag and address misinformation.
