RUTHFULLY YOURS

Meta, parent of social media giants Facebook, Instagram and Threads, has decided to make substantive changes to its fact-checking policies — changes that will mean less-onerous scrutiny of users’ posts by paid “fact-checkers,” and more by fellow readers. Is it a victory for free speech? A solid plurality of Americans say “yes,” according to the latest I&I/TIPP Poll.

Users have long complained about “woke” rules that lead to even innocuous posts being, in effect, censored by Facebook’s and Instagram’s legions of “fact-checkers.” A common complaint of users described a system that resulted in progressive politics being used as a template by which to stifle free speech.

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg recently announced he would replace the formal fact-checking mechanism with a “community notes” system, such as the one favored by X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk.

Do Americans like the changes?

In its January 2025 national online poll, taken from Jan. 8-10, I&I/TIPP asked 1,424 adults this question about the changes to Meta’s fact-checking rules: “Do you agree or disagree that Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking practices will positively impact free speech on its platforms?”

That answer came back “yes,” but with a large share of respondents describing themselves as “not sure” yet about the changes. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points.

Overall, 43% said they agreed either “strongly” (19%) or “somewhat” (24%) that Zuckerberg’s move would bolster free speech, while 32% disagreed strongly (17%) or somewhat (15%). But a sizeable 24% said they weren’t sure how the changes would impact free speech.

And how people felt about it varied by age, with younger respondents agreeing it’s a good thing, while older ones are less likely to agree. Among those 18-24 years, 50% agreed that the changes were good; for those 25-44, it was 46%; 45-64, 42%; and the most skeptical group of all was those 65 and over, with just 36% agreeing that the move will benefit free speech.

Political differences also showed up, as often is the case. Some 55% of Republicans agreed with the statement, while just 22% disagreed; by comparison, smaller shares of Democrats (36% agree, 42% disagree) and independents (37% agree, 36% disagree) were far more skeptical.

I&I/TIPP asked another question about the new online fact-checking method: “Do you think Meta’s new approach with Community Notes will be more effective than its previous fact-checking system?”

Those taking the poll expressed some doubts on that question, with a plurality of 40% answering “not sure,” while 34% answered a flat-out no, and only 26% answered yes.

So, most people are dubious of the changes, even if they think they’re for the better.

In one final question, one that bears on the commercial viability of the elimination of fact-checking, I&I/TIPP asked: “How likely are you to use Meta platforms more often because of this announcement?”

Here, the view was more or less positive for the switch, at least as far as Meta’s customer base. Some 25% answered that they were either “much more likely” (10%) or “somewhat more likely” (15%), while 40% answered “no change,” 17% “not sure,” and only 18% said “less likely.”

So is fact-checking dead? Not yet, but it may well soon be. If so, credit the “community notes” option used by Elon Musk’s X. Even Meta’s Zuckerberg admits he is following Musk’s lead.

“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg said in a video posted online. “More specifically, here’s what we’re going to do. First, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X, starting in the U.S.”

“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech,” Zuckerberg added. “So we’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms.”

Zuckerberg met with President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in November. Since then, he donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural, and named prominent Republican and former adviser to George W. Bush to be his “chief global affairs officer.”

Is fact-checking really Trump-centric? Seems that way. As the Wall Street Journal’s media-scourge James Taranto wrote last week, Trump’s 2016 election brought a frenzy of fact-checking as Trump foes refused to recognize his win over Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.

Taranto noted that “(t)he president-elect’s opponents blamed his victory on what they called ‘fake news,’ disseminated via social media. (The epithet switched to ‘misinformation’ when Mr. Trump flipped the script and appropriated ‘fake news’ to insult the legacy media.)”

That same year, Taranto adds, Facebook began contracting with FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, ABC News, the Associated Press and others to fact-check its content. “This censorship intensified after Joe Biden was elected, sometimes at the government’s direction. The targets included news organizations,” Taranto wrote.

Issues & Insights, which partners with TIPP Insights to produce the monthly I&I/TIPP Poll, has had its own run-ins with fact checking. Indeed, several weeks after the 2024 presidential election, I&I ran an editorial titled “Unburdened By What Has Been, Trump Is Poised To Deliver Bigly.”

According to Google, the piece contained “unreliable and harmful claims” and was demonetized.

But was the charge true? I&I can’t know, since Google and fact-checkers won’t tell why they did it. As I&I wrote in a subsequent editorial, “Google didn’t, and never does, provide any specific information on what exactly violated these standards or what a ‘fix’ would entail. But it did strip its ads from that page, costing us money.”

Such stories are common across the social media universe, raising profound questions about the stifling of free speech and social media outlets, both large and small, with unpopular views.

Is this the end of something bad, and the start of something better? Most people think free speech will benefit. But a significant share of people who answered the three questions about fact-checking in our latest poll — 27%, on average — said they were “not sure.”

Will it make a difference? Yes, especially since Meta’s Facebook and other sites reach a stunning 3.3 billion people regularly, nearly 40% of the world’s population, while Musk’s X reaches 611 million monthly active users, according to Statista.

And even Google, perhaps emboldened by Trump’s election, announced last week it will not add fact checks for search results and its popular YouTube service, as a new European Union law demands. So it’s catching on.

One thing’s clear: Americans don’t want their right to free speech impaired, and didn’t like the faux objectivity of “third party” fact-checkers deciding what they can and can’t read. But they’re also not entirely sure that “community notes,” the crowd-sourced commentary that lets users challenge a post’s truth or falsity, is the best way to go.

I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past six presidential elections.

Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.