Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is criticized by PolitiFact executive for ending fact-checking on his platforms.

On Tuesday, the executive director of PolitiFact criticized Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Meta, for ending fact-checking on his platforms.

In a post on X, Aaron Sharockman criticized Zuckerberg's decision to terminate its collaboration with independent fact-checkers and the company's allegation that these fact-checkers displayed political bias when evaluating posts on Meta platforms.

Sharockman stated on X following Zuckerberg's announcement that if Meta is upset about creating a tool to censor, it should examine its own actions.

On Tuesday morning, Zuckerberg announced in a video on X that Facebook would focus on reducing errors, simplifying policies, and restoring free expression on its platforms. He specifically stated that fact-checkers would be removed and replaced with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the U.S.

For years, Meta has utilized journalists from PolitiFact and other outlets to verify and provide context to posts on its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.

On Tuesday, Meta's chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, revealed to Planet Chronicle Channel's "Fox & Friends" that Meta had initially relied on independent, third-party fact-checkers like PolitiFact. However, Meta has since realized that these fact-checkers are biased, with PolitiFact, in particular, facing accusations of leaning left in its articles.

Kaplan stated on Tuesday that it is evident that there is an excessive amount of political bias in the selection of topics for fact-checking because they only verify information they encounter on the platform.

According to Zuckerberg's video, Kaplan announced that Meta is replacing its fact-checking project with a "Community Notes" model, similar to the one used on X, where ordinary accounts can contribute context and fact-checks to posts.

Kaplan stated that instead of seeking advice from an expert, the platform relies on the community and its members to provide their own commentary on something they've read.

Mark Zuckerberg's decision to remove independent journalists from Facebook's content moderation program in the United States is not about free speech or censorship, but rather a subtle move.

Zuckerberg's accusation of political bias was rejected by him, who argued that Meta's platforms, not the fact-checkers, were responsible for censoring posts.

Meta and Facebook, not fact-checkers, make the decision to remove or penalize a post or account, as stated by Sharockman.

He suggested that Meta should establish a platform for independent fact-checkers to offer more information and speech to users seeking a comprehensive understanding of posts.

"Politifact.com is where you can view all of our work online. We do not rely on anonymous sources and have a bibliography for all the information we consulted. In the event of an error, we have a process to rectify it. Additionally, we have a process in place to ensure that Facebook and Meta receive the corrected information."

He added a caption to his statement, stating that PolitiFact will provide more information on this topic. However, he emphasized that this decision was not related to free speech or censorship. PolitiFact has been involved in the project for over 8 years.