Mark Zuckerberg and his Meta group will start using “Community Notes”, like X.Image: watson
Analyse
Following Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement of the abandonment of the Meta group’s fact-checking program in the United States, there is concern about the self-regulation left to Internet users. But the calculation is also economical.
11.01.2025, 18:5011.01.2025, 20:56
Follow me
More from “International”
This week, the Meta group decided to take action on the fact-checkers who monitor the content published on its platform in the United States. From now on, the community will be responsible for assigning notes to correct or clarify incorrect information. A system very reminiscent of the “Community Notes” used by X.
The European Commission is currently analyzing this system. “It may be that Meta is waiting for this study to apply their decision to the European Union,” estimates Laurent Cordonier, Valais sociologist and research director at the Descartes Foundation in Paris.
Mark Zuckerberg’s decision is surprising, because the boss of Meta said during the 2016 American presidential elections:
“We believe the risks of allowing the president to continue to use our service during this time are simply too great.”
In 2025, “Zuck” radically changed his position during his 5-minute speech to announce the end of fact-checking. Here are the main points:
“There has been much debate about the negative effects of digital content. Governments and mainstream media have pushed for ever more censorship. Much of this is clearly politically motivated.”
He takes the opportunity to add:
“The recent elections also marked a cultural tipping point in prioritizing freedom of expression. Therefore, we will go back to basics and focus on reducing errors, simplifying our principles and restoring freedom of expression on our platforms.
Mark Zuckerberg
Laurent Cordonier sees this as bad news for information integrity: “Meta was innovative in this area. With Facebook, it was the first digital platform that understood that it was participating in the dissemination of false information.
However, this “Community Notes” system is seen as a step backwards by observers. Its operation adopts self-regulation described as “illusory” by our Valais contact.
Zuckerberg’s announcement is certainly a step towards Trumpist politics and a form of allegiance, coupled with an economic calculation: “We have the information initially verified by professionals, and now, we ask volunteers to do it, according to procedures that are not at all clear and which are not safe. But at least it’s free,” says Laurent Cordonier.
Liberation, which was part of the fact-checking program, was transparent about the amounts paid by Meta:
“Libération and its CheckNews section were among the first newsrooms to participate in this program, to communicate regularly on its operation and the income we earned from it (100,000 dollars in 2017, 245,000 dollars in 2018, 236,000 dollars in 2019 and $239,200 in 2020) before leaving him permanently in March 2021.”
While for Trump and Musk, the media are enemies of information that distort reality, Laurent Cordonier notes a funny aspect in the notes on X: users regularly refer to an article from a professional media to complete their “Community Note”. The expert continues:
“Meta thinks it can do the same thing, and for free, thinking that people can do the work because they are big enough. It’s a total illusion. Fact-checking is criticized for being politically oriented, for being too progressive. But what about the community that will assign grades and will surely be politically oriented?”
Laurent Cordonier
The sociologist describes lsocial platforms as a media in itself“according to an editorial line which is not displayed, unlike a traditional media with a defined and asserted line”. Indeed, on networks, this line is “incomprehensible, invisible and created by the algorithm. This idea of immediate access to information is a fiction,” says Laurent Cordonier.
He particularly criticizes this highlighting of accounts which arouse very strong emotions, as Facebook has been accused of doing in the context of various scandals. “We know that fake news promotes indignation and fear; the algorithm pushes these contents to keep people connected and pushes in fact false information. And, obviously, it will be worse if journalistic fact-checking is abandoned,” he emphasizes.
The example of January 6
Following the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Washington Post relayed a survey (carried out in December 2023) which gave food for thought. It found that 25 percent of respondents thought it was “definitely” or “probably” true that FBI agents organized and encouraged the attack on the Capitol. 26% were unsure.
In the wake of the January 6 attack, David A. Graham, journalist at The Atlanticwrote, in a premonitory burst: “Remember the attempted coup d’état yesterday at the US Capitol. Very soon, someone might try to convince you that it was different.”
By choosing to play the game of disinformation on his networks, Zuckerberg is opening the floodgates and establishing a digital revolution which could further fracture the debate and shake up an already shaky democracy.
