AFRICA APAC EUROPE MIDDLE EAST NORTH AMERICA

Fact-checkers have played a crucial role in enabling users to identify false information by marking content as potentially misleading and providing links to reliable research . The system did not remove content but instead gave users the context needed to make informed decisions , with the decision to remove content always coming from Meta and not fact-checkers .

Vaidotas Šedys , Chief Risk Officer at Oxylabs , said : “ The discourse surrounding Meta ’ s decision may inadvertently become a self-fulfilling prophecy , and public concerns of wild spreads of disinformation bombing the users of Meta ’ s social media platforms might act as an invitation to troll farms to test the new boundaries . Henceforth , the transition period will be precarious , requiring a heightened level of caution from users , policymakers and Meta itself .

“ Meta ’ s shareholders stand to gain the most from this shift . Removing fact-checking is likely to increase user activity and engagement – key metrics for monetisation . However , troll farms , which often exploit controversial and divisive topics , are poised to capitalise on the platform ’ s vulnerabilities , and by fuelling public dissatisfaction , especially on politically charged issues , they will find ample opportunities to amplify their agendas . This dynamic underscores

the risk that Meta ’ s platforms may become battlegrounds for disinformation campaigns , with potentially significant societal repercussions .”

Viktoras Daukšas , Head of Debunk . org , a Lithuania-based disinformation analysis centre and independent think tank , partner of Oxylabs Project 4beta , added : “ Meta is following in the footsteps of X and poses the risk of creating an informational vacuum that could become a tool for manipulation , especially as state-sponsored trolls from countries like Russia or China gain unrestricted access to platform content . This chaos could severely hinder efforts to combat disinformation in the US and undermine the public ’ s ability to distinguish trustworthy information from false narratives .”

“ By limiting access for researchers and organisations working to analyse

disinformation , platforms may be attempting to avoid communication and legal crises ,” added Daukšas . “ However , this approach significantly jeopardises public safety and the quality of information available . In Europe , such actions could violate the Digital Services Act , which holds platforms accountable for ensuring safety within the EU . If Meta ’ s decision to remove fact-checkers applies to Europe , The European Commission will likely respond decisively to protect information integrity and prevent such changes from becoming widespread .

“ This situation reflects broader debates about platform responsibility and the influence of political shifts on corporate decisions . The European Union will defend users ’ rights with strict regulatory measures , ensuring that similar decisions do not set a dangerous precedent .” x

62 www . intelligentcxo . com