Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has pledged to combat misinformation in Australia ahead of the country’s 2025 federal election. The company is implementing a strategy that includes third-party fact-checking partnerships and media literacy campaigns—methods it recently abandoned in the United States in a move widely seen as an effort to appease former President Donald Trump.
This contradiction highlights Meta’s shifting approach to misinformation, which appears to be influenced by political considerations rather than a commitment to consistency. While Australians will benefit from fact-checked information and reduced misinformation, Americans are left with a new “Community Notes” system—one that has already sparked concerns over its effectiveness.
With the Australian election set for May 2025, Meta has outlined a “comprehensive approach” to safeguard the integrity of information on its platforms. According to Cheryl Seeto, Meta’s head of policy in Australia, the company will continue working with reputable fact-checking organizations, including:
- Agence France-Presse (AFP)
- Australian Associated Press (AAP)
Seeto explained in a recent Meta blog post that these organizations will independently review content, flag false or misleading posts, and apply warning labels. This process will reduce the reach of misinformation before it spreads widely.
Additionally, Meta will partner with AAP on a new media literacy campaign, helping Australians recognize unreliable sources and assess content critically.
On the surface, this seems like a positive step—Meta is taking election misinformation seriously. But the real controversy lies in the fact that this very same strategy was dismantled in the United States, raising questions about why Australia gets fact-checkers while the U.S. does not.
Meta Killed Fact-Checking in the U.S. to Appease Trump
In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg announced a major shift in Meta’s U.S. misinformation policy. In a blog post and accompanying video titled “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes”, Zuckerberg revealed that the company was ending its third-party fact-checking program in the U.S.
Instead, Meta is now relying on a “Community Notes” system, similar to the crowdsourced model used on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). This system allows users to submit context or corrections to posts, which other users can then vote on to determine credibility.
Zuckerberg framed this change as a response to growing pressure from governments and media organizations:
“There’s been widespread debate about potential harm from online content. Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more. A lot of this is clearly political.”
By shifting away from fact-checkers in favor of a crowdsourced model, Meta effectively aligned itself with Trump’s political rhetoric. Trump has long accused traditional media and tech companies of bias and censorship, labeling the press an “enemy of the people.”
By removing fact-checking in the U.S., Meta appears to be taking a step toward winning favor with the Trump administration, which has expressed hostility toward Silicon Valley’s past moderation policies.
The Double Standard: Why Australia Still Gets Fact-Checkers
If Meta truly believes that fact-checking is unnecessary or too “political”, why is it still using the system in Australia?
Meta’s official response is that the fact-checking changes are “initially” only happening in the U.S., while other countries will continue with the old system—for now. But this raises some uncomfortable questions:
- If fact-checking is ineffective or biased, why keep it in Australia?
- If Community Notes is a superior system, why not roll it out everywhere immediately?
- Is Meta’s decision based on political pressure rather than a genuine strategy to fight misinformation?
It’s hard to ignore the fact that the U.S. is the only country where Meta is making these changes, and it’s also the country where:
- Trump is back in office, attacking the media and demanding less censorship.
- Zuckerberg has been accused of bowing to political pressure from conservative voices.
- Tech regulation is a hot-button issue, with companies like Meta hoping to avoid government crackdowns.
In contrast, Australia’s political landscape is different. There is no Trump-like figure threatening to punish Meta for its moderation policies, allowing the company to continue its fact-checking program without facing the same level of political backlash.
Although fact-checking remains intact outside the U.S., Meta’s statement suggests that changes could be coming globally. The company acknowledged that Community Notes is still being tested and improved before expanding beyond the United States.
This could mean that:
- Meta will eventually remove fact-checking worldwide, replacing it with Community Notes.
- Meta is waiting to see how Community Notes performs in the U.S. before making a final decision.
- Meta is keeping fact-checking in some regions to maintain appearances, while quietly phasing it out over time.
If the ultimate goal is to eliminate fact-checkers entirely, countries like Australia, Canada, and the European Union may push back. The EU, in particular, has strict laws against misinformation, and regulators have already warned tech giants about weakening their election integrity measures.
What This Means for Users
For Australian users, Meta’s current election strategy means:
- Less misinformation due to independent fact-checkers.
- A more reliable news ecosystem with flagged and labeled false content.
- A media literacy campaign to help voters make informed decisions.
For American users, however, the shift to Community Notes introduces new risks:
- Misinformation could spread more easily, as the system relies on crowdsourced corrections rather than independent verification.
- Community Notes could be weaponized, with bad actors using coordinated efforts to promote misleading “corrections.”
- Political groups could influence the system, as “fact-checking” power is placed in the hands of users rather than experts.
This creates a two-tiered system—one where countries outside the U.S. still get professionally fact-checked information, while Americans are left with a social media experiment that may or may not work.
Meta’s handling of misinformation in Australia contradicts its recent decisions in the U.S., exposing a politically motivated double standard. While Australian voters will benefit from traditional fact-checking, Americans are being pushed toward a crowdsourced alternative—one that conveniently aligns with Trump’s anti-media stance.
The key takeaway? Meta’s approach to misinformation isn’t driven by a commitment to truth—it’s driven by politics. And as Trump’s influence continues to shape the U.S. tech landscape, it’s likely that other countries will soon face similar changes to their fact-checking systems.
For now, Australians get a reliable election strategy. Americans get an experiment.
