Meta’s move to replace its third-party fact-checking program with Community Notes is a bold one, but that doesn’t make it right. At its core, the shift is about loosening the grip on content moderation in the name of free speech and returning to a “more open” platform. But in the process, Meta is simply opening the floodgates for misinformation, manipulation and confusion.

Fact-checking has been a Facebook practice since 2016, but it hasn’t been a perfect system. It’s filled with flaws and biases, but in com-parison to the new direction, it’s still more reliable than leaving it up to the crowd.

If Meta’s Community Notes looks like an experiment in crowdsourced moderation, that is because it is. In this experiment, ordinary users, who may lack proper expertise, decide what content needs more context.

If we’re leaving it up to a random set of contributors, what guarantees that they’re providing the correct context, or even that they’re offering something useful?

Meta claims that “the community” will keep the system unbiased by requiring agreement from people with “a range of perspectives.” It’s not a “range of perspectives” we’re getting; it’s a mix of competing echo chambers that will make any serious attempt at balanced fact-checking implausible.

Meta will no longer be able to claim it’s doing anything to prevent the spread of misinformation because now, the problem will be everyone’s responsibility to fix, but no one’s job to solve.

Meta doesn’t exactly define what community they refer to when describing the Community Notes, but if the initiative’s demographic is anything like the user base on X (formerly known as Twitter) the crowd is most likely internet warriors with biases and ideologies to preach. This initiative gives them a perfect platform to do so, with no truth limits.

For users in favor of acting like this won’t be weaponized, I believe that is naive. Right-wing and left-wing extremists alike will no doubt abuse this system to push their narratives.

The way I see it: this is no longer a battle of fact but of ideology.

Politicians use platforms like Facebook to spin their webs, influencers push products and AI-generated hoaxes are becoming harder to detect. At a time like this, the idea that an uninformed and biased crowd will save us from harmful content is simply false. This isn’t about empowering users; it’s about Meta dodging the responsibility it once had.

Meta’s proposal to “allow more speech” by lifting restrictions on “mainstream discourse” and “political content” can only be described as dangerous. Lifting the limits on harmful rhetoric while giving a free pass to partisan misinformation will only drive further polarization. 

But the biggest problem with Community Notes isn’t just that it opens the door for misinformation: —it’s that it completely misunderstands what’s at stake in moderating content in the first place. The goal of content moderation isn’t just to “inform” users or let them make up their minds: it’s to protect the integrity of the conversation, to ensure that what’s being shared is true, and to minimize the spread of harmful, false information.

Meta’s pivot to user-driven moderation is a risky experiment that undermines all of those goals.

What happens if the system fails? We’re about to find out. But given the state of online discourse, it’s hard to believe this can end any way but badly. Community Notes might look like a victory for free speech, but in practice, it’s more likely to be a free-for-all.

The old system wasn’t flawless, but it worked within a defined structure that allowed for some degree of accountability. This shift to user-generated notes means that Meta will no longer take direct responsibility for the accuracy of its content. In a way, it’s a clean break from any accountability—and that’s the real problem here.