In its recent announcement, Meta stated that it is ending its anti-disinformation program and committed to “more speech and fewer errors” (Meta, 2025). Given the size and global reach of their platforms, this is not just a blow to systematic and professional online fact-checking; it is a blow to the very soul idea of fact checking – and that is a problem for democracy.
Meta began deploying teams of third-party fact-checkers in the aftermath of the 2016 election, when large amounts of misinformation (false information intended to mislead) and disinformation (false information spread in good faith) flooded platforms like Facebook. Although hardly perfect, studies suggest that Meta’s program reduced both the spread of falsehoods and belief in them (Martel & Rand, 2024). It was a step in tackling the rampant spread of harmful (mis)information, such as ‘COVID does not exist’ or ‘the 2020 election was stolen’.
Ending the program – rather than improving it – therefore has disturbing consequences for the spread of lies online. But the undermining of fact-checking by the world’s largest social media platform also has a more insidious effect: It undermines the value we place on the truth in general. And that has consequences that extend beyond social media, but also to culture itself.
Skepticism about the truth
Philosophers have long debated what truth is – and many have wondered whether we can ever really know what is objectively true and what is not. Yet skepticism about the truth is not just an academic exercise. It is often armed.
As philosopher Hannah Arendt noted in The origins of totalitarianismAuthoritarian propaganda thrives on “extreme disregard for facts as such, for in their view facts depend entirely on the power of the man who can make them up” (Arendt, 1951). In other words, it is in an authoritarian’s self-interest to undermine the idea that anyone other than himself can check the facts or say what is true and what is false.
This skeptical strategy can be found in many polarized political movements, authoritarian or not. It’s not about spreading lies. It is about reducing trust in external authorities – encouraging members of the movement not only to dismiss evidence that challenges their worldview, but also to express “contempt for the facts as such.” Practically speaking, this means rejecting the idea that there can even be objective evidence that contradicts your views and those of your partisan allies.
The real damage
The deeper concern with Meta’s decision is that it risks fueling this dangerous cynicism about truth and facts. For it sends a signal that distinguishing between truth and falsity in objective, independent ways is unimportant or unattainable.
This is important because the truth and the pursuit of it are fundamental democratic values. Democratic decision-making depends on voters having accurate information. That much is clear. But it also requires people to do that concern primarily about accuracy. That means you worry about the right things, not just what will get you more likes from your political allies. It means that you have no dismissive contempt for the idea of truth or fact.
Conclusion
Meta’s decision to end its anti-disinformation program represents more than just a policy change. It threatens to fuel a broader cultural aversion to the truth that endangers democratic values.
