Statement from the organizations that make up the LatamChequea network regarding the changes Meta announced to its content moderation policy.

Meta announced on Tuesday the end of its Third Party Fact-Checking (3PFC) program in the United States, which will be replaced by a community notes system similar to the one used by the platform X (formerly Twitter).

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of the company that owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, justified the decision—without providing evidence—claiming the fact-checking system had “too many mistakes” and “too much censorship,” and accused fact-checkers of being politically biased.

We are concerned that, in justifying his decision, Meta’s founder is equating fact-checking journalism with censorship, when in no case do fact-checkers decide what happens to content. Our work ends when we label posts as true, false, or misleading, based on a rigorous verification process that follows a public methodology.

Fact-checkers have always defended freedom of expression. What we seek is to provide evidence, verified information, and context about what is circulating, in order to empower users to make informed decisions—not to remove or censor content.

Positive impact in the fight against disinformation

Fact-checking journalism did not begin with Meta’s program; there are organizations in the region that have been doing this work since 2010. The work of fact-checkers has been evaluated many times, showing that it helps correct misconceptions on a variety of topics in different contexts and contributes to limiting the spread of disinformation, among other benefits. Even labels on social media posts—such as those used by Meta—have proven effective in reducing belief in disinformation.

The independent fact-checking program has been implemented by Meta since 2016 to help fight disinformation on its platforms, and several members of LatamChequea are part of it. In the program, fact-checking journalists certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) analyze potentially misleading posts and, if the evidence shows they are true, false, or misleading, they apply a label. Then, it is the company—not the fact-checkers—that decides what to do with this information. As Meta has explained on multiple occasions, the platform’s policy is to reduce the visibility of the content, add context to posts, and alert those who shared them that new information is available. False content is not deleted or made inaccessible.

Decisions like the one Meta announced tend to increase opacity and take away clarity from a community navigating in the shadows of disinformation.

Since fact-checkers began working with Meta, there have been no claims of bias by the company. One of the requirements of the program is IFCN certification, which includes an analysis of published content to ensure that there is no political bias—one of the basic principles of fact-checking journalism. According to the program’s own rules, posts by politicians are not subject to verification.

Meta also did not present any evidence of errors in the work done by fact-checkers. According to data the company submitted to the European Union, of the content whose visibility was mistakenly reduced, only 3.15% was due to fact-checking—the lowest percentage among all categories, as noted by the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN).

Eliminating this kind of program, which aims to counter the effects of disinformation, benefits actors who seek to influence public opinion or profit from falsehoods. At a time when distinguishing truth from falsehood is increasingly difficult, this decision brings one clear certainty: it is true that disinformation producers are celebrating and preparing to take advantage of this window of opportunity.

Fact-checking journalism is more necessary than ever

Disinformation can erode trust in democratic systems, confuse citizens, and even lead them to make dangerous decisions about their health, among other consequences. Fact-checkers play a fundamental role, as the Organization of American States (OAS) points out: “Fact-checking agencies, which have grown exponentially in our region in recent years, play an important role in combating disinformation. Through the verification of public discourse, they provide a service that can help citizens navigate a complex—and at times—contaminated public debate.”

Fact-checking journalism has been vital during moments such as the pandemic, elections, and social uprisings, and is one of many necessary strategies to counter disinformation. Measures and accusations made without evidence damage the information ecosystem.

It is essential that governments, international organizations, and platforms like Meta work together to ensure transparency in content moderation policies and strengthen regulation of the digital environment. Only then can we protect human rights and ensure a balance between freedom of expression and information integrity.

The Latin American fact-checking network LatamChequea reaffirms its commitment to evidence, data, and access to information for citizens. We will continue working with high journalistic standards to fight disinformation, promote informed public debate, and strengthen international alliances that defend transparency in the digital space.