Meta’s decision to get rid of fact checkers could lead to less brand safety, according to Australian creatives.
Mark Zuckerberg is restoring what he calls “free expression” to Facebook and Instagram after the current moderating system resulted in “too much censorship”.
Fact checkers are being replaced with Community Notes, where users can alert others to potentially misleading posts, but experts fear the change could be a problem for brands and advertisers.
Independent fact checking units working under contract to Meta in Australia will continue their work, for now, despite the social media company moving to a community-led system in the US.
However, creatives told AdNews that adland needs to stand up and be forward thinking because the effects could be felt much further.
Tara McKenty, executive creative director at AKQA Australia, said brands face a “critical choice” on their societal stance in a global political climate marked by unsettling developments and radical ideologies.
“Now is the time for brands to assess their historical legacy, within their own communications, and the media channels they choose to support,” she said.
“With platform policies shifting, and altruistic values being dropped from company manifestos, where we place our messages as brands is almost as critical as the messaging itself.
“Some might say brands that discuss identity politics, and the human rights of underrepresented communities are woke and it is not their role.”
McKenty said underrepresented consumers will remember which brands “feared and disappeared” and which ones showed up on the side of right.
“A way to do that is to ethically consider where we spend and what channels are safe and inclusive to all consumers,” she said.
“Those brands that genuinely support diverse communities will see dividends in the long term and will be rewarded with seismic consumer loyalty, such as IKEA from the LGBTQIA community for their bravery in 1994 when they launched 'Dining Room', the first ever mainstream TV ad featuring same sex talent.
“Now, more than ever, it’s imperative for brands to embrace a courageous ethos. We stand at a juncture where creativity and our industry can hinder or help.”
Jen Sharpe, founder and managing director at Think HQ, said it’s undeniable that the notion of what brand safety looks like is evolving - but this doesn’t mean advertisers should rush to start a race to the bottom.
“Brands have agency, and the choices they make now will define their future credibility when the pendulum swings back,” she said.
“And let’s remember: Australia is not America. We have our own media ecosystem, regulatory frameworks and cultural dynamics. But it’s undeniable that America’s sneeze always risks becoming our cold.
“Changes to online moderation, increasing political polarisation, and declining self-regulation in the digital space pose real risks - particularly to those communities and individuals most vulnerable to harm.”
Sharpe believes mitigating these risks requires vigilance and a broader perspective.
“It’s not just about ensuring ads don’t appear next to harmful content; it’s about understanding the entire ecosystem,” she said.
Sharpe said the swift alignment of major tech players with political winds in the US should serve as a wake-up call here.
“This extends beyond social media to legacy media, indie creators, and emerging platforms,” she said.
“Brands must decide how willing they are to engage in spaces where moderation and ethics are increasingly elastic.
“The good news? There’s big opportunity in doing the right thing.
“When the cultural winds start blowing a different way - as they certainly will - the companies and agencies who hold onto their values and their business smarts will be the real winners.”
Psembi Kinstan, chief creative officer at DDB Melbourne, said it's “hard to say” how much less brand safety adland will have to get used to.
“Zuckerberg and Trump’s love-in has taken most of the Meta team off guard, and I’m sure there is no desire within Meta Australia to edge the platforms towards an X style porn-violence–extremist-free-for-all,” he said.
“Let’s not pretend many at the Meta team agree with Zuck. But as content moderation dips, worryingly, engagement (and therefore revenue) will likely go up - to a point.”
Kinstan questioned how much risk will big brands stomach before they pull back from one of their biggest media channels.
“If Meta can’t give big brands some assurances, through targeting or other means, I suspect the appetite for risk will be extremely low,” he said.
“But given a larger proportion of revenue for Meta comes from small versus large brands, how motivated is Meta to provide the brand safety that big business needs? Let’s wait and see.”
Hannah Nickels, national head media thinker at Thinkerbell, said brand safety is a challenge for advertisers, especially on social media, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
“Meta’s recent shift away from fact checking reminds us of the realities of balancing brand safety with people-led platforms,” she said.
“If we take a longer term view on brand safety, the rise in decentralisation and decentralised social platforms (like Bluesky) makes content moderation and brand safety increasingly tricky to navigate.
“It also signals to expect less standardisation and so there’s a greater need for flexibility and resilience to be built into how advertisers tackle it.”
Nickels said there needs to be a greater focus on who brands align with, noting that influencers and creators are not only a powerful for brands but also in how information is spread.
“It’ll be increasingly important for brands to understand what people actually stand for, and the conversations they are having with their communities before they partner with them,” she said.
“People listen to people more than brands, but they are also quick to judge and dismiss their perspective - so choosing wisely will become increasingly difficult.”
Nickels said Australian advertisers have historically been conservative with ad spends when there is a crisis or political conversation spikes, stressing the need more proactivity around moments.
“We expect this to increase and would recommend brands have a strategy in place now vs being left to make decisions once brand safety is already at risk,” she said.
“Deciding where is the right environment and context for your brand to appear will get increasingly difficult.
“Only by truly understanding what your brand does, and does not want to be associated with will marketers be able to navigate the increasing complexities of brand safety.”
Emma-Jaye Zappacosta, head of social at Eleven, said brand safety has always been mandatory when it comes to social media management.
“From profanity filters to trolls in the comments section, social media managers have to be comfortable with the uncomfortable, always ready to triage comments/DM’s as and when they come in to mitigate the risk of misinformation or prevent a negative explosion of banter,” she said.
“It has always been the responsibility of social media managers and community managers to moderate and nurture the communities they build for brands and creators alike, but this year we’ll undoubtedly see social listening and community management programs work overtime, always erring on the side of caution in real time to protect brands and users.
“Following what can be considered a turbulent start to the year across social media, social media managers must be more vigilant than ever before, learning to fly the plane as it scales the clouds.”
Matt Geersen, creative partner at Connecting Plots, said the federal government is currently Facebook’s biggest ad spender.
“A recent estimate suggested as much as 60% of Meta advertising traffic is bots, so I’d be more concerned about marketers shouting into the abyss,” he said.
“The platform is already rife with misinformation prior to Meta’s change in stance on fact checking, so I think the time to worry about safety has already passed.
“Where issues will arise is in political advertising, particularly with an election looming.”
Geersen said there’s been plenty of instances of misinformation being spread through Meta in previous election cycles.
“Just look at the Advance Australia party using old headlines to mislead the public on specific issues,” he said.
“But it also begs the question - do you really want Meta being judge, jury and executioner on what is and isn’t allowed?
“Or should that responsibility fall to an independent body that can impose penalties, and doesn’t directly benefit from political spending.”
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.