Public Support for Fact-Checking on Social Media Remains Strong, Despite Meta’s Policy Change
A recent study from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s Information Integrity Institute sheds light on the public’s ongoing desire for third-party fact-checkers on social media platforms, even after Meta’s controversial decision to end its fact-checking program across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Meta, the parent company of these platforms, announced in January 2025 it would terminate its third-party fact-checking initiative, citing claims of political bias and concerns that it had become a tool for censorship. This change, along with the removal of content restrictions on sensitive topics such as immigration and gender identity, has sparked heated debates, with some applauding the decision to promote free speech. In contrast, others fear it will worsen the spread of misinformation.
Information Integrity Institute faculty fellow Assistant Professor Ben Horne and its Postdoctoral Research Associate Matthew Craig’s recent study explored public perceptions of fact-checking by social media companies and found most Americans support the idea of third-party fact-checkers. Specifically, 66 percent of respondents somewhat agree or strongly agree that fact-checkers should be used on social media. This sentiment was consistent across political affiliations, although there were some notable differences in levels of support.
The study’s results revealed that users who frequently consume news through Facebook and Instagram were particularly supportive of fact-checking. Among these frequent news consumers, fewer than 11 percent expressed opposition to the idea of having fact-checkers. This finding challenges the assumption that user preferences drove Meta’s decision. Instead, the study suggests Meta’s policy change is more likely a response to external political pressure rather than a move to align with user preferences.
The findings of this research also point to broader concerns about the future of content moderation on social media platforms. As Meta removes fact-checking and other platforms possibly follow suit, there are increasing worries about the potential rise of misinformation. Studies have consistently shown that fact-checking is an effective tool in combating the spread of false information. For example, prior research has demonstrated that content warning labels, as used in fact-checks, significantly reduce users’ trust in false information and the likelihood of sharing it. Even users who are skeptical of fact-checkers have shown a reduced belief in misinformation when presented with fact-checking labels.
In conclusion, Horne and Craig’s research reinforces the importance of third-party fact-checking in maintaining the integrity of online information. While Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program may align with certain political pressures, it does not reflect the wishes of most users. As misinformation continues to be a significant issue online, the public’s desire for fact-checking is clearer than ever. Social media companies, including Meta, will need to reconsider content moderation approaches to maintain user trust and prevent the further spread of false information.