THE "POST-FACT-CHECKING" ERA: HOW META AND X / TWITTER ARE REDESIGNING CONTENT MODERATION?

The end of fact-checking at meta and the revamping of twitter’s (now “x”) algorithm have recently caused a global shockwave. As social networks increasingly shape public opinion, these decisions raise serious concerns about the proliferation of misinformation and its impact on democratic vitality.

META IN THE UNITED STATES: A CONTROVERSIAL SHIFT TOWARD COMMUNITY-BASED MODERATION

At the center of this upheaval is Meta, which has ended its fact-checking program in the United States to adopt X/Twitter's "Community Notes" system. While touted as a step forward for freedom of expression, this transition raises fundamental questions about whether community moderation can effectively combat large-scale misinformation. Until now, Meta has funded 80 fact-checking organizations across 26 languages to verify information. Critics fear that organized groups might exploit this reporting tool to spread false content, creating artificial "information bubbles." Mark Zuckerberg has defended the move, arguing that fact-checkers had become "too politically biased."

Meanwhile, Twitter/X is undergoing a complete overhaul of its recommendation algorithm, focusing now on "informational/entertaining" content. Observers note that this approach prioritizes the most viral and sensational posts over verified information. The stakes are even higher as the platform has already stirred controversy by reinstating accounts previously banned for spreading hate speech or fake news. In this climate, the drive for maximum engagement risks eroding safeguards for the digital public sphere.

Adding fuel to the fire are persistent rumors of political pressure from influential figures like Donald Trump to relax moderation rules. In the United Kingdom, activists have accused personalities such as Andrew Tate of manipulating opposition forces behind the scenes. This volatile context deepens public mistrust and heightens the threat of the internet becoming a "battleground" where any weakness in information control can be exploited for destabilization.

WHAT SAFEGUARDS CAN PROTECT DEMOCRACY AGAINST FAKE NEWS?

Amid these challenges, several potential solutions are emerging. On one hand, public authorities are considering stricter regulations, such as the European Digital Services Act, to compel platforms to increase transparency in their algorithms. On the other hand, stronger collaboration between fact-checking organizations, public institutions, and private companies appears to be a key lever for maintaining a quality information ecosystem. Lastly, digital media literacy and public awareness campaigns to detect misinformation have become essential priorities to strengthen citizen resilience.

THE FIGHT FOR INFORMATION RELIABILITY: A CRUCIAL BATTLE AGAINST MISINFORMATION

Whether it involves Meta or Twitter/X, the fight for reliable online information is far from over. The recent strategic changes by these tech giants serve as a warning: without robust safeguards and collaboration among all stakeholders—including users—we could witness an escalation of misinformation that deeply undermines our connected societies. As highlighted by studies such as Allcott and Gentzkow (2017) or Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral (2018), fake news spreads six times faster than true information on Twitter/X. Similarly, Brandolini's Law, also known as the "bullshit asymmetry principle," demonstrates that the energy required to refute misinformation is an order of magnitude greater than that needed to produce it. In short, if Meta and X sought to empower destabilizing actors, they couldn’t have done it better. A highly unlikely and utopian "Non-Proliferation Treaty for Fake News" still seems far away…

In this evolving digital landscape, vigilance and innovation remain our best lines of defense.

SOURCES

• Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives.
• 
  
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The Spread of True and False News Online. Science.
• Digital Services Act (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 19, 2022.
• Data from reports by cybersecurity NGOs (e.g., Graphika, Citizen Lab).
• News articles and investigations published by reputable media outlets (The Guardian, The New York Times, Wired).