Meta’s decision to get rid of fact checkers could lead to less brand safety and further compound challenges in justifying ad spend.
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. "Before rolling out any changes to our fact checking program outside the US, we will carefully consider our obligations in each country, including Australia," Meta said.
John Greig, advertising area convenor at Western Sydney University, who worked in the industry from the late 1980s through to 2010, said a lot has changed.
“Back then traditional advertising was primarily about truth/facts and being non-offensive because there were guidelines now all those guidelines have disappeared - which makes advertising on these social platforms a very risky area to play in,” he told AdNews.
“I think if they are going to stay on these platforms, brands will probably aim to play it safe – you don’t want to ‘stick your neck out’ as it will probably be chopped off. We used to aim for a ‘point of difference’ but that point of difference could easily become a very large target on your brand.”
Greig believes that brands won’t want to risk potentially damaging their image by appearing next to false or mis-leading content.
“Brand safety is a huge thing as the value of the brand and how it is perceived has been built upon over a long period of time, a huge financial investment from the company,” he said.
“Brands may steer their media choice to channels they have more control over - like out of home, broadcast or cinema - and they may spend more online on trustworthy digital sites, and less on social platforms. And maybe if they’re unsure about being on social platforms, it will be less sponsored ad content, and maybe more use of their own brand Facebook, Insta, X pages, and influencers.”
Amanda Spry, senior lecturer in marketing at RMIT University, said Meta's decision to transition from a third-party fact-checking system to 'Community Notes' has significant implications for all brands and advertisers that employ their platforms for promotion and dialogue.
“The risks of misinformation spreading and the resurgence of harmful content that arise from Meta's decision are heightened for these brands,” she said.
“They engage with hot-button socio-political issues and attract divided and at times, prejudiced discussion.”
Spry believes that without rigorous fact-checking, activist advertising could be misrepresented or targeted with false claims.
“Dangerous or misleading content could gain traction, and the user-generated ‘Community Notes’ may reflect biased or polarised perspectives on activist content,” she said.
“Brands may face reputational risks if their posts are flagged or criticised based on subjective opinion rather than objective fact.
“It will be more challenging for brand activists to establish credibility and garner trust, which are key to creating positive social change.”
Michael Klaehn, discipline lead at QUT College, said Meta is undermining trust in its ecosystem as a safe advertising channel by potentially enabling misinformation and harmful content to spread more freely.
“Meta’s decision to end third-party fact-checking in favour of community-driven moderation creates significant risks for advertisers, particularly regarding brand reputation and platform reliability,” he said.
“The absence of professional oversight raises the likelihood of ads appearing next to misleading or offensive content. This is a reputational minefield for brands, as such associations can erode consumer trust and damage brand equity.
“The risks are not hypothetical. Similar issues led to mass advertiser departures from X, while previously, platforms like Google faced scrutiny when companies such as Unilever and AT&T pulled YouTube ads over concerns about placement alongside extremist content.”
Klaehn believes Meta’s approach further compounds challenges in justifying ad spend.
“The reliance on algorithms and community moderation risks prioritising engagement over accuracy, making it harder for advertisers to ensure their messages land in appropriate and effective contexts,” he said.
“This undermines the platform’s value proposition as a reliable advertising media, particularly for brands focused on both reputation and return on investment.
“To adapt, advertisers must prioritise robust brand safety measures, reassess Meta’s role in their media strategies, and consider diversifying spend to platforms with stronger content controls.
“As seen with past advertiser shifts, platforms that fail to balance free expression with accountability risk losing their credibility - and their clients.”
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.