Alfie Lagos.
My New Year’s resolution was simple this year. The pearls are going in the drawer and staying there. No clutching in 2025 when the inevitable next round of gnarly news drops. Instead of spiralling over the headlines or reading what everyone else thinks, I'll instead reach for the earphones, listen to what is actually being said from the horse's mouth (and to what people are saying of course), before deciding for myself. For whatever that's worth.
So here's my read, imagine a soccer match where the referee suddenly steps back and says, “play fair, I am done making calls.” That is essentially what Meta is doing by stepping away from fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram. The question isn't whether the game will continue, it's whether players will respect the rules or if chaos will take over.
For advertisers though, the bigger question is whether this actually changes anything.
If you've spent more than five minutes in a Facebook comment section, you'll know Meta’s brand safety issues didn't begin with fact-checking and they'll not end here either. Between fight-watch groups (where I recently learnt what FAFO means), conspiracy pages and some truly unhinged comment threads, brands were already playing on a field full of questionable tackles.
For all the outrage, this change probably will not cause a major advertiser exodus. The reality is that most brands have already priced in Meta’s chaotic environment and been using their own filters and controls to manage risk.
Like it or not, media spend follows attention. According to Roy Morgan’s latest data (Roy Morgan - AU 14+ Monthly Media Consumption - Sep 2024 database) on Australian media consumption, Facebook still leads the pack for Australians aged 14 and over who have used the platforms in the last month. Facebook sits at 78.3% reach, Instagram at 56.7% and X at a surprisingly high 41.1%. Brands don't follow moral purity. They follow scale. Well, except in one particular category where the audience is huge but the environment is a little too solitary. There's a reason advertisers prefer platforms where people are actually passing the ball, not just kicking it against a brick wall by themselves. So unless a platform truly tanks engagement, advertisers will stay put.
Critics argue that Meta’s move is about cosying up to Trump ahead of his presidency. But as Zuckerberg recently pointed out on Joe Rogan, any timing would have been scrutinised. A year ago it would have been called election interference, a year from now it would have been called caving to Trump’s presidency, and now it is being called preemptive alignment with the new administration. Ultimately, when the ref was always going to get booed, does it matter when he walks off the field?
That being said, there may be a bigger game playing out behind the scenes. In November, Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, a move that suggests the two are looking for common ground after years of strained relations. At the time, the meeting raised eyebrows, but in hindsight, it may have given Zuckerberg a clearer picture of how the next few months would unfold. If Trump signalled that Elon Musk acquiring TikTok’s US operations was a real possibility, Zuckerberg may have seen the writing on the wall and acted early.
The comparison to Elon Musk’s “hands-off” moderation of X might not be entirely accurate either. While the platform still has a reputation for being the Wild West of content, X’s 2024 Global Transparency Report highlights that the first half of the year saw a rise in content moderation actions. More than 10.6 million posts were removed or labelled, and more than five million accounts were suspended globally for various violations, including hate speech and violent content.
Interestingly, this marks an increase in moderation compared to the pre-Musk era. For example, in the second half of 2021, Twitter removed roughly 5.04 million posts across similar categories. Under Musk’s leadership, that number nearly doubled to 10.4 million compared to the first six months of 2024, even as the platform’s tone shifted toward a policy of “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.”
While this transparency report was published by X itself, raising questions about the full context, it does suggest Musk’s team has leaned into moderation actions to balance advertiser confidence with his free speech ethos. This balancing act may provide Zuckerberg with data on whether looser moderation policies could co-exist with commercial viability.
If Musk takes over TikTok and adopts a hands-off moderation style, Meta may be removing fact-checking now to stay ahead of shifting industry norms. A Musk-led TikTok could also become more appealing to advertisers by loosening restrictions, forcing Meta to rethink its own stance to prevent ad dollars from shifting elsewhere. And with the TikTok sale dominating the political conversation, Meta’s decision to step back from fact-checking could also be a strategic move to avoid becoming the next big target in Washington.
The shift away from centralised fact-checking is not a revolution. It is a course correction. Zuckerberg is clearly watching how X’s Community Notes play out, and if it proves more effective, we will likely see other platforms follow.
For advertisers, this is not a ‘run for the exits’ moment. It is just another reminder to stay informed, assess risk and, as always, go where the audience is. Just not everywhere.
Alfie Lagos, Director at Lexlab