By Xhabir Deralla
It’s not a question of whether Mark Zuckerberg will discontinue fact-checking. There might even be some justification for that decision, but the far greater danger lies in Facebook and other social networks cutting off, limiting, or otherwise hindering democratic discussion and activism for human rights and freedoms.
Additionally, the question remains open as to how much this would embolden the centers of disinformation production and dissemination to intensify their activities. The real danger is not just that social networks can be hotspots for spreading disinformation, hate, anti-democratic, and war propaganda, but that they are also in a position to actively or passively suppress pro-democracy discourse.
Social networks are extremely important arenas for political dialogue in general, and particularly for grassroots activism and the mobilization of democratic movements in countries affected by authoritarian regimes, conflicts, and wars. These platforms provide a space for marginalized groups, the oppressed, human rights defenders, and pro-democracy activists to reach a wide audience, challenge the propaganda narratives of the far-right, dictators, and aggressors. This has been and remains a key resource for organizing communities, groups, and individuals to connect with one another and drive processes of social change on local, national, and international levels.
“After Trump first got elected in 2016 the Legacy Media wrote Non-Stop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the Arbiters of truth. But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US,” Zuckerberg said in a video that sparked a global wave of reactions.
Some might argue that Zuckerberg’s comments are little more than an attempt to curry favor with President-elect Trump and his unofficial superior, Elon Musk—and they might not be entirely wrong. However, there’s another critical factor to consider. Over the years, fact-checking organizations have evolved into a distinct elite, using their expertise and the authority granted by Zuckerberg, along with multimillion-dollar grants from major donors, to dictate both who could participate in fact-checking and the terms under which it would occur.
Regardless of whether we partially or fully accept Zuckerberg’s arguments as he announced dramatic changes in the functioning of the social networks he manages (Facebook, Instagram, Threads), several unanswered questions and serious dangers remain.
In what follows, I will share some thoughts on what to expect and what to pay attention to in the post-fact-checking era of Zuckerberg’s social networks.
Facebook has the potential to cut off, limit, or otherwise hinder pro-democracy discussions. This could have catastrophic consequences for thousands of people worldwide who rely on social networks to drive societal change.
How might this happen?
Even amateurs know that social networks have the ability to implement algorithmic suppression. This is achieved by deprioritizing pro-democracy content through algorithmic adjustments, making certain posts less visible to users. Conversely, polarizing or authoritarian narratives often exploit engagement-driven algorithms (likes, shares, comments, etc.), gaining visibility while stifling constructive democratic conversations.
Social networks like Facebook could decide to implement disproportionate policy changes that affect activists or human rights defenders. For example, strict restrictions on “political content” could silence legitimate democratic discourse while allowing disinformation not only to persist but to multiply. Zuckerberg has claimed that “political content” has been unfairly suppressed and announced that users will be able to view and share more political material in the future.
Still, the question remains: will Zuckerberg’s platforms treat content from the propaganda machinery of leaders like Orbán or Vučić the same as content from democracy and human rights activists? Or will activists continue to be pushed to the margins? This raises the issue of selective moderation—whether content moderation will become biased. In other words, will human error or systemic decisions lead to the removal of posts or accounts advocating for democracy under the guise of “violating community standards,” as has already happened countless times in my immediate circle?
Under pressure or for other reasons, Facebook might restrict access to the platform in certain regions or make it less functional for groups advocating for democratic change. In countries with authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Serbia, and others, Facebook may succumb to government pressure aimed at silencing civic dissent.
Finally, economic priorities may play a decisive role. Facebook’s business model is profit-oriented—a fact that should never be forgotten. Content backed by powerful centers of influence will always dominate, overshadowing material that promotes democratic values.
The consequences of this development in social networks are numerous and far-reaching. Above all, it will contribute to further and deeper stupidifying of people.
The erosion of democratic discourse is already more than evident in much of the world, with the countries of the Western Balkans serving as a stark illustration of the inglorious role played by social networks, media, and even parts of civil society. In this context, even before Zuckerberg’s decision to end cooperation with fact-checkers, it has long been apparent that the public’s ability to engage with critical issues has diminished. All that can be observed is an endless cacophony of competing factions, not only refusing to listen to each other but inciting hatred and calling for violence against dissenters.
While activists, civil society organizations, and independent online media—largely reliant on social networks like Facebook—are further weakened, we are already witnessing the dizzying rise of authoritarian narratives.
Zuckerberg promises transparency and accountability, with the “Community Notes” model set to replace fact-checkers. But whether this will actually materialize remains to be seen. The track record of Zuckerberg’s social platforms under the fact-checker regime is far from impressive.
There is little need to argue that social networks are shaping the world today. Facebook’s role in this context is critical, or at least one of the most significant. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that Zuckerberg is one of the key players in determining whether the world will continue to sink into the nightmare of authoritarianism and oppression or give democracy a chance to thrive.
