The move by Meta to eliminate its fact-checking system and adopt a policy similar to Elon Musk's is viewed as a victory for free speech by experts.

The move by Meta to remove content restrictions and replace its fact-checking system with X's Community Notes is being widely praised as a significant victory for free speech by experts.

Some critics are skeptical that Meta's reforms will bring significant change, but MRC Free Speech America vice president Dan Schneider believes it's a victory for First Amendment advocates.

"Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, has implemented systemic and long-lasting changes, such as replacing some of the most radical people in Silicon Valley with individuals like Joel Kaplan and Kevin Martin at the number two and number three spots in the corporation. Schneider stated that these changes, including altering the algorithms, are significant victories."

UCLA Chief Data & AI Officer Chris Mattmann commended Zuckerberg's decision to allow greater free expression on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

If Elon Musk had not purchased Twitter and renamed it X, and if he had fired all the Trust & Safety people and those involved in independent fact-checking, it is possible that Trump's election may not have occurred.

Not all were happy with the news. Fact-checking groups, liberal media commentators, and other critics have dismissed claims of political bias and accused Meta of neglecting its content moderation duties. The New York Times also reported on fact-checkers who were skeptical of Meta's assertion.

"Scott Baradell, author of "Trust Signals: Brand Building in a Post-Truth World," compared Meta's decision to a referee being pulled off the field and hoping the players would still play fair. He told Planet Chronicle Digital that it raises serious questions about whether Big Tech is retreating from its responsibility to balance free speech with the need for public trust in the digital age."

Mark Zuckerberg's words are high-minded, and he's certainly right that there have been issues with bias in third-party fact-checking. However, let's be honest: he's taking the path of least resistance in the wake of a Trump victory.

The third-party fact-checking program at Meta was introduced after the 2016 election and was used to manage content and misinformation on its platforms due to political pressure. However, executives admitted that the system has gone too far.

Conservatives have accused Facebook of politically motivated censorship, pointing to examples such as the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop and content about COVID-19, which Zuckerberg admitted was a mistake and was pressured by the Biden White House.

"According to Joel Kaplan, Meta's chief global affairs officer, the company went to independent, third-party fact-checkers. Kaplan stated in an interview with Planet Chronicle Digital on Tuesday morning that there is too much political bias in what these fact-checkers choose to verify because they have the power to fact-check whatever they encounter on the platform."

Mattmann, who was previously CTO of NASA's JPL, stated that although there is some validity to claims of left-wing bias and inaccuracies among Meta fact-checkers, his main observation was Zuckerberg's decision to stop downranking content that has been flagged or rated.

Meta, according to Kaplan, will modify some of its content moderation guidelines, particularly those that are deemed "overly restrictive and stifle discussions on sensitive topics such as immigration, transgender issues, and gender."

Meta employs automated systems, according to Kaplan, which he stated result in "too many mistakes" and remove content that does not violate their standards.

Juda S. Engelmayer, CEO and President of HeraldPR, stated to Planet Chronicle Digital that the issue with Meta and other major tech platforms is the coordination of fact-checkers with these platforms to censor content, often based on personal opinions and ideological agendas.

The censorship of the debate over the origin of the coronavirus from a lab in China, due to its perceived offensiveness or political sensitivity, should never have occurred, she stated.

The debate over whether the virus is deadly and whether vaccines and masks are necessary involves scientific discussion and changing information. Suppressing opposing or supportive viewpoints based on a fact-checker's opinion of what is best for the public undermines open dialogue.

As Meta adopts a more "open-system approach" and "transparently" reveals its internal processes, the platform will improve. Previously, Meta would limit the reach of content that was fact-checked poorly or contained specific keywords.

Mattmann proposed that users will have a better understanding of review decisions and see more content on the platform, regardless of the context provided by fact-checkers.

The main difference, Mattmann emphasized, is that Community Notes is an open and transparent system where readers can view some of the discussions about why a piece was marked and who did it.

Independent fact-checking organizations differ from Community Notes in that their profiles can be reviewed. Those who possess Community Notes can examine the provenance and verify that the content was edited by specific individuals, who can then be looked up on X. This open-source mentality ultimately prevails, leading to a more reliable outcome.

Mattmann suggested that Meta could enhance X's approach by increasing transparency for users.