Meta's decision to end its fact-checking program has sparked outrage among liberal media commentators, who have labeled it "incredibly dangerous."

After Meta announced it would end its fact-checking program as part of changes to "restore free expression" on its social media platforms, liberal media commentators grumbled on social media.

In a video message posted Tuesday morning, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the upcoming changes to Facebook, Instagram, and other Meta apps.

"Zuckerberg announced that the company will focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying policies, and restoring free expression on its platforms. In particular, fact-checkers will be eliminated and replaced with Community Notes similar to X, beginning in the U.S."

In 2016, after Donald Trump's election, Zuckerberg acknowledged that the third-party fact-checkers partnered with Meta were "too politically biased" and "destroyed more trust than they created."

The company's meta executives announced that they would be modifying their rules on speech moderation for sensitive topics, including immigration and gender, which were deemed "overly restrictive."

While conservatives commended Meta's move, the announcement was met with fierce opposition from left-wing and anti-Trump commentators in the press.

"Why does Zuck lack courage? Isn't the purpose of being a billionaire that you don't have to be a target for tech journalists and aspiring dictators?" MSNBC analyst and The Bulwark podcast host Tim Miller wrote on X.

Stelter stated that Meta was attempting to win over the Trump administration through its "MAGA-friendly" modifications.

In a CNN analysis, Stelter criticized Meta's move to change Mark Zuckerberg's image to a MAGA supporter, arguing that it would reshape the internet and that censorship concerns on these platforms are "right-wing" talking points.

Jemele Hill, a journalist and former ESPN host, wrote that removing fact-checkers is extremely hazardous.

"If I claimed that Donald Trump was born from a rhinoceros and a Martian, created graphics and headlines, and presented it as a fact, would that be acceptable?" she inquired.

"The significant influence of misinformation and disinformation on our politics has been observed. If you oppose fact-checking, it raises questions. If your notion of free speech involves granting equal weight to falsehoods and truths, you've misplaced your priorities."

The Tennessee Holler reported that Zuckerberg appears to be a hostage in a video that looks almost like it, as he completely bends the knee to Trump and eliminates Facebook's fact-checkers, moving the process to Texas under the guise of protecting free expression.

The fact-checking project with Meta, which journalists had been involved in for eight years, was criticized by those involved after its termination.

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

Mark Zuckerberg's decision to remove independent journalists from Facebook's content moderation program in the United States is not related to free speech or censorship.

Zuckerberg's accusation of political bias was opposed by him, who argued that Meta's platforms, rather than the fact-checkers, were the ones that censored posts.

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

"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."

Meta's decision was also criticized by Angie Drobnic Holan, who is the director of the International Fact-Checking Network and a former editor-in-chief of Politifact.

The code of principles followed by Meta's fact-checkers mandates nonpartisanship and transparency. Unfortunately, this decision was made under intense political pressure from the new administration and its supporters. Despite accusations of bias, fact-checkers have remained impartial in their work. The claim that they are biased comes from those who believe they should be allowed to exaggerate and lie without challenge or correction.

Planet Chronicle' Brooke Singman and Gabriel Hays contributed to this report.