In the absence of fact-checking, false and misleading content can spread like wildfire, distorting public perception and undermining the integrity of information available to users. It becomes even easier for malicious actors to manipulate public opinion, potentially fueling social and political unrest, which is quite concerning. Meta should really reconsider this decision and work towards implementing more robust and effective fact-checking mechanisms to safeguard the quality of information on its platform.

Fact-checking needs to be absolutely unbiased and based upon verifiable facts. However the ideal of rigorous peer-review in the sciences has shown that it often fails to eliminate unsound conclusions.

Partial transcript:

"You and I, if we say a lie we are held responsible for it, so people can trust us. Well, Facebook made a system where the lies repeated so often that people can't tell."

"Both United Nations and Meta came to the same conclusion, which is that this platform Facebook actually enabled genocide that happened in Myanmar. Think about it as, when you say it a million times... it is not just the lie but also it is laced with fear, anger and hate. This is what was prioritized in the design and the distribution on Facebook. It keeps us scrolling, but in countries like Myanmar, in countries like Philippines, in countries where institutions are weak, you saw that online violence became real world violence."

"Fear, anger, hate, lies, salaciousness, this is the worst of human nature... and I think that's what Big Tech has been able to do through social media... the incentive structure is for the worst of who we are because you keep scrolling, and the longer you keep scrolling the more money the platform makes."

"Without a shared reality, without facts, how can you have a democracy that works?"

— Nobel Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa

undefined