Introduction

A prominent fact-checking organization associated with Facebook has publicly voiced its disappointment in response to Meta’s recent announcement regarding a significant overhaul of its fact-checking strategies. Lead Stories has raised concerns over claims of political bias that were made by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg during a press briefing.

Lead Stories’ Response

On Tuesday, Lead Stories editor Maarten Schenk expressed his surprise and dismay at learning about the termination of the Meta Third-Party Fact-Checking Partnership, of which Lead Stories has been a part since 2019. In a public statement, Schenk noted, “We were surprised and disappointed to first learn through media reports and a press release about the end of the partnership.”

This response came shortly after Meta’s announcement that it would alter its fact-checking practices with the aim of “restoring free expression” across all its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.

Background on Lead Stories

Founded in 2016 and incorporated into Facebook’s content moderation framework, Lead Stories has employed several former CNN reporters, including Alan Duke and Ed Payne. The organization has become a key player in the landscape of fact-checking and misinformation on social media.

Reports indicated that Meta’s decision to terminate the fact-checking program stems from pressures to address misinformation without compromising free speech. Fox News Digital first reported the news, highlighting Zuckerberg’s admission that the company’s previous moderation practices had “gone too far.”

Zuckerberg’s Statement and its Implications

In a video message, Zuckerberg claimed, “After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address these concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth.” He also remarked that fact-checkers had “destroyed more trust than they created, especially in the US.”

Concerns Over Accusations of Bias

Lead Stories contested Zuckerberg’s assertions regarding political bias among its ranks. The organization raised questions about the lack of complaints from Meta concerning any perceived bias throughout their partnership. “One of the requirements Meta imposed for being part of a partnership included being a verified signatory of the IFCN’s Code of Principles, which explicitly requires a commitment to non-partisanship and fairness,” Schenk pointed out.

Moreover, Lead Stories expressed concern that the upcoming moderation system would mimic the Community Notes model on X (formerly Twitter), which they criticized as often slow and inaccurate. They argued, “Ultimately, the truth doesn’t care about consensus or agreement: the shape of the Earth stays the same even if social media users can’t agree on it.”

The Debate Over Community Notes

In their commentary, Lead Stories highlighted critical shortcomings of the Community Notes system, emphasizing its lack of transparency regarding contributors. “Readers are left guessing about their bias, funding, allegiance, sources, or expertise, and there is no way for appeals or corrections,” the article noted. In contrast, they argued that fact-checkers must adhere to transparent practices mandated by the IFCN.

Future of Lead Stories

Despite the challenges posed by the cessation of support from Meta, Duke affirmed that Lead Stories intends to continue its work in fact-checking. “We will continue, although we have to reduce our output with no support from Meta,” he stated. He reassured the public that Lead Stories’ work is global, indicating that they will maintain output in eight languages aside from English.

Reactions from Conservative Circles

The revocation of Meta’s fact-checking program has elicited mixed reactions, particularly from conservative commentators. Many took to social media to criticize Lead Stories for its lamentations about the change, citing previous grievances against Facebook’s efforts to moderate conservative viewpoints.

British American conservative writer Ian Haworth took to X, stating, “Of all the fact-checking companies, Lead Stories is the worst. Couldn’t be happier that they’ll soon be circling the drain.”

Criticism from Other Fact-Checkers

Notably, the executive director of Politifact condemned Zuckerberg’s remarks, asserting that the decision to remove independent journalists from Facebook’s content moderation program had nothing to do with free speech. Aaron Sharockman stated, “Let me be clear: the decision to remove or penalize a post or account is made by Meta and Facebook, not fact-checkers. They created the rules.”

Conclusion

As the landscape of social media evolves alongside controversies surrounding free speech and misinformation, Lead Stories remains committed to its mission of fact-checking, despite significant changes in its institutional support. Schenk concluded his statement on a cautious note of perseverance, thanking Meta employees for their collaboration over the years while reiterating the essential role of verified information in a free society: “Just because it’s now trending without a fact-checking label still won’t make it true.”