Meta Looks for the X Factor

By Bhaskar Chakravorti, Dean of Global Business at the Fletcher School

What Mark Zuckerberg’s change of heart on misinformation means for the world.

Mark Zuckerberg has had another change of heart.

In 2016, responding to critics who blamed Donald Trump’s surprise election as U.S. president on misinformation spread primarily on Facebook, its founder wrote, “We take misinformation seriously.” This set off a period of social media platforms taking responsibility for content even though they were legally off the hook.

In 2021, with Trump defeated and banned from Facebook, and Joe Biden installed as president, Zuckerberg doubled down. He testified during a House of Representatives hearing on misinformation and said, “We’ve built an unprecedented third-party fact-checking program … The system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best approach that we’ve found to address misinformation in line with our country’s values.”

In 2025, barely two weeks before the second coming of a Trump presidency, Zuckerberg announced that it was time to get back to “our roots around free expression.” His company, Meta, will be ending partnerships with third-party fact-checkers and will be jettisoning curbs on posts related to politics, gender identity, and immigration. It’s hard not to see Zuckerberg’s shift in position as copying Elon Musk’s crowdsourced solution to fact-checking and dropping of restrictions on X.

Predictably, this has led to a widespread freak-out. There are many theories circulating about what might be going on with Zuckerberg. Take your pick: He truly believes that third-party fact-checkers are “too politically biased”; he has gone fully MAGA, in lockstep with fellow tech mogul, Musk; he fears that the incoming Trump administration might target his business interests; he is worried about being personally targeted by Trump (who wanted him thrown in jail); he is worried about being personally targeted by first buddy, Musk, who had challenged him to a cage match; he is just being consistent with his past track record of adapting to whichever direction the winds of feedback are blowing after every election cycle; he is returning to his “true” libertarian roots; he is going back to his “I’m CEO, bitch” roots, runs a trillion-dollar company with a dual-class stock structure and has controlling share, so he can do whatever he wants; or all of the above. It could even be something else entirely.

But what’s in Zuckerberg’s heart is ultimately unknowable. Instead, we ought to ask a more practical question: What difference might the shifts at Meta make to the well-being of its platforms’ users, of whom there are at least 3.59 billion? Although these changes are limited to the United States for now and only 5.74 percent of Facebook users—Meta’s most significant platform—are U.S.-based, they will undoubtedly have wider and more profound consequences.

First, let’s put Zuckerberg’s announcement in a global perspective. The wider world beyond the United States’ borders accounts for the vast majority of Meta’s total users, and in this world there are governments, as in the European Union or countries such as India or Brazil, that will continue to remain crotchety about excessive free expression. Meta must still comply with local regulations and government demands to take down or corral any content they deem objectionable.

This status quo could change. Zuckerberg plans to “work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” This newfound confidence in “pushing back” on foreign governments ought to be more troubling than the fact-checking changes in the United States. The swagger with which Musk has been using his closeness with Trump and his social media reach to meddle in the politics of numerous countries, particularly in Europe, is already a gross abuse of U.S. power abroad. (Both Musk and X are widely considered to be the biggest purveyors of disinformation.) If Zuckerberg attempts to copy such strong-arm tactics, with Trump as an enabler, people worldwide could suffer. Europe, for instance, has been at the forefront of putting up guardrails to protect online users and curbing misinformation.

There are other ways in which the decisions in the United States could lead to harm elsewhere. As Meta rolls back partnerships with fact-checkers, the resources for carrying out fact-checking will, inevitably, weaken worldwide as far too many organizations depend on funding from Meta. There are likely to be more instances of problematic content abroad that will run afoul of regulators. The move could also give some governments an excuse to exercise blanket bans on content, groups, and hashtags, thereby quashing legitimate free expression. As the White House and its tech allies act in tandem, foreign governments are likely to engage in diplomacy or conflicts with the United States through unvetted, unschooled, and unelected proxies, such as Zuckerberg, Musk, and their emissaries. This could present an unusual and dangerous twist on the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and use of U.S. power abroad. Free expression could come at a high cost around the world.

Within the United States, meanwhile, the ground is already shifting across the social media landscape. In fact, the worsening of standards among powerful, locked-in incumbents may turn out to be a good thing, creating a hunger for better alternatives. There are niche platforms such as WeAre8, with innovative features such as giving users more control over their experience and sharing advertiser revenues with users every time they watch an ad. Even if such entrants don’t survive, discontent with legacy social media creates an opening for fresh ideas.

There are also entrants, such as Bluesky, which picked up 26 million followers by 2024’s end, with real momentum. Bluesky’s relatively quick rise can partly be attributed to good timing and political necessity, as the need for amplifying opposition voices emerges after every election. Recall that left-leaning sites such as HuffPost took off after George W. Bush’s second term as president; right-leaning sites took off after Barack Obama’s first term; and more extreme right-leaning sites emerged after Joe Biden won in 2020. Bluesky was also buoyed by the toxicity of content on X and Musk going fully MAGA, causing an exodus. Will Bluesky get a second boost from those looking to exit from Meta’s platforms? Its users are highly engaged, and it is a stronger source of referral traffic than either X or the Meta-owned platform, Threads, which could help Bluesky get the push it needs. Users might end up with more options that are competitive and appealing.

We also can’t ignore an even bigger shift underway in that option space that could narrow competition: the potential ban of TikTok or its forced sale to a U.S. owner. With 170 million U.S. users, TikTok’s weakening or disappearance will create waves. Regardless of its fate, there are competitor platforms that are nipping at its heels, notably Meta-owned Instagram Reels. An alliance between Zuckerberg and Trump could be problematic for users. After all, Trump favored a ban in his last presidency, even if he is now reversing course. “Why would I want to get rid of TikTok?” Trump recently posted on social media, citing the platform’s political value. The question we must ask right now is: How might the growing Trump-Zuckerberg camaraderie affect the options users have as outlets for free expression?

Finally, with all the hand-wringing over the elimination of third-party fact-checking on Meta platforms, the question must be asked: Is it misplaced and overdone? One could reasonably question the value of third-party fact-checking given the volume of messages posted on any of Meta’s platforms, especially since these organizations can do superficial levels of fact-checking at best. Does it offer only a veneer of verifiability and mislead users? Might crowdsourcing, as an open market for free expression, fix the problems associated with free expression? A well-managed and crowdsourced platform such as Wikipedia has done well as a reliable information source. Why not consider a parallel rationale for fixing the informational ills of social media?

Academic research on this question offers mixed answers. On one hand, studies find that third-party fact-checker labels were perceived to be better at rooting out misinformation as compared to algorithmic labels and labels from users. An additional challenge with crowdsourced fact-checking is that even if it works, it could appear too late or was found to be “too slow to intervene in the early (and most viral) stage of the diffusion.” That said, there is a logical argument to be made for an open market system as the only method for systematically correcting and mitigating misinformation at scale. An 2021 study, for example, showed that small crowds of laypeople do surprisingly well when identifying misinformation—and do better than third-party systems at scale.

An important consideration is who actually pays for all this: the advertiser. Unlike privately owned X, Meta is a publicly traded stock; political connections are nice, but the stock market will eventually ask to see the money. Even Zuckerberg will need to make sure that his actions do not trigger an advertiser exodus, especially since Meta had been become a safe space for many brands. Mimicking X is not the best way to assuage skittish advertisers. If a more competitive social media space opens up or if big incumbents such as Alphabet (which owns Google) see an opportunity to earn advertisers’ trust, might Zuckerberg pivot again? Fortunately, he has had plenty of practice. All this can certainly wreak havoc on users’ ability to trust brands.

If you are among the roughly 64 percent of the world’s population using social media, Meta’s X-rated turn is mixed blessing. Zuckerberg may have given his users some added leverage and a better alternative to battling misinformation, or he could have made matters significantly worse on both fronts if you live in a country that gets on Trump’s bad side.

Everyone must be aware of these opportunities and the attendant risks and go into the digital universe with eyes wide open and alternatives on hand. The safest future for all of us is where social media is less social and more personal. And we should probably stop psychoanalyzing Zuckerberg’s every move and instead focus on the bigger questions.

(This post is republished from Foreign Policy.)