Here in New Zealand, numerous recent attempts have been made to regulate misinformation, hate speech, and online harm.
Ironically, this decision by one of the largest tech giants may result in even greater calls for government control, and further limits on free speech.
Fact-checking began at Meta in 2016 to combat the rise of misinformation, especially after the company faced criticism for amplifying alleged falsehoods during the US presidential election.
While arguably well-intentioned, the initiative became controversial. Conservatives accused Meta of targeting right-leaning views (Zuckerberg himself has accepted there was unacceptable bias), while others said it failed to actually curb online harm.
By dropping fact-checking, Meta appears to sidestep political pressures and reputational risks. Zuckerberg described the decision as responding to a “cultural moment”, suggesting people are questioning centralised controls over truth. Yet this framing feels disingenuous from a company that has actively manipulated what billions of users see online.
The political calculus behind Meta’s decision is clear. Fact-checking exposed the company to criticism from all sides, creating a no-win scenario.
By retreating, Meta seeks to reposition itself as a neutral platform. But Zuckerberg’s track record - from restricting speech during politically sensitive moments to removing content under government pressure - shows this is about convenience, not principle.
For New Zealand, this is a wake-up call.
We cannot rely on tech giants to prioritise public good over profit. Instead, we must invest in digital literacy education to help citizens critically evaluate online content.
Equipping people to recognise and reject harmful falsehoods is the most sustainable way to combat misinformation without stifling legitimate expression. Better ideas- and the ability to identify and promote them - are the best tools for defeating bad ideas, not censorship.
That is part of the contribution the Free Speech Union makes with its Speak Up! programme in high schools. Other civil actors, such as Netsafe, also invest in this “education first” approach.
Regulatory approaches must tread very carefully. Overly aggressive measures, such as those proposed by the previous Government, will inevitably be weaponised to suppress dissent. Meta’s decision is no principled defence of free expression; it is a political manoeuvre to avoid controversy.
For us in New Zealand, the lesson is clear: the fight for free speech and truth cannot be left to corporations.
It is up to citizens and policymakers to shape a digital public square where open debate thrives, and all Kiwis can contribute their voices and beliefs to the marketplace of ideas.
Free speech is worth defending, and Meta’s decision is worth celebrating, even when it emerges from flawed motives.
The writing is on the wall for companies such as Meta, written in a Trumpian font. This decision serves as a reminder that the fight for free expression must be led by citizens, not corporations. And it underscores the urgent need for transparency and accountability in an era where the boundaries of free speech are increasingly dictated by a handful of tech executives.
Critics of Meta’s move (of which there are many) would do well to consider the alternative.
A world where tech giants act as gatekeepers of truth is a world where dissent is stifled, innovation is curbed, and trust in democratic institutions erodes further.
The better path is one where citizens are empowered to engage critically with information, where robust public discourse allows ideas to rise or fall based on their merits, and where the principle of free speech remains paramount.
This decision, albeit cynical, may pave the way for a more robust and open digital public square - one where ideas rise or fall based on their merits, not on the judgment of fact-checkers.
In the long run, this approach is the best safeguard for free speech, democracy, and the pursuit of truth.
