Once, the internet was hailed as an equalizer and a space for human connection. Now, it has become a tool for division. This intent was initially subtle, even deniable. However, it has become strikingly clear after technology mogul Mark Zuckerberg chose to forego fact-checking on Meta-owned platforms like Facebook and Instagram—a troubling decision that favors deception over discourse and ignorance over informed thought.
This signals a startling shift toward the suppression of critical thought, coinciding with the resurgence of fascist politics. Populist leaders have mastered the art of digital propaganda; they began to flank the public conscience by infiltrating every screen, before eventually dominating the ones nestled in our pockets. They appeal to our strongest yet most irrational emotions: anger, fear, and contempt. With the removal of content moderation, their revisionist histories become the ruling narratives.
In the Philippines, where over 73 percent of the population rely on social media for news updates, this poses a grave threat. The 2022 National Elections revealed the extent to which disinformation could manipulate Philippine voters. Many fell victim to cheap campaign ads and misleading information from unverified accounts. With the 2025 Midterm Elections fast approaching, concerns have grown over the media consumption of Filipinos.
We have seen this before. Reports suggested that in 2016, then-candidate Ferdinand Marcos Jr. allegedly asked British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, to sanitize his family’s controversial image. A decades-long dictatorship was rebranded through a tale of golden eras and economic miracles—and it worked. Without robust tools to disseminate factual information to the public, we risk repeating history.
In response to Meta’s decision, a new fact-checking system mirroring Elon Musk’s Community Notes on X will be introduced. Users who sign up for this program will act as fact-checkers or add context to posts. While this empowers users to correct misinformation, it is also a double-edged sword. It risks allowing falsehoods to fester under the guise of democratic participation. The potential for satire, bias, and false information remain unchecked. In fact, this issue was highlighted when Zuckerberg himself became a target after his announcement, as posts mocking him surged, misleading vulnerable individuals.
The power of social media platforms goes beyond mere content-sharing. Algorithms and moderation policies can subtly—or overtly—dictate political opinions and election behaviors. This power is amplified within “political echo chambers,” which reinforce the user’s bias by showing them information they will likely agree with. Yet, instead of strengthening fact-checking efforts, Meta has chosen to abandon them. This absence of diverse perspectives stifles critical thinking and facilitates the spread of falsehoods.
Critics of third-party fact-checking argue that it suppresses free speech, which Zuckerberg claims to promote with the said shift. However, without systematic and impartial checks, the flood of misinformation threatens to erode informed decision-making and public trust in democratic processes. Leaving fact-checking entirely in the hands of users is not a viable solution; it is a surrender to the chaos of disinformation. Social media platforms must strike a balance, preserving freedom of expression while preventing harmful, false, or misleading content from flourishing.
Now more than ever, scrolling on social media during political campaigns feels like you are picking your poison: free speech or facts? But this is a false dilemma. While we have the right to express our opinions, we must also understand how to do so responsibly. Zuckerberg justifies the removal of Meta’s fact-checking by arguing that “fact-checkers have become politically biased.” But he is missing the point. Verifying information is never about picking a side; it’s about uncovering the truth without bias.
This fight against disinformation is a looming threat to our collective future. It is more than just a virtual feud and debate with strangers online—it is about safeguarding democracy itself. This is especially evident in the Philippines, where political discourse is often defined by the branding of candidates instead of their platforms.
While independent fact-checkers, including campus publications, continue to hold the line against deceit, they can only do so much in the face of politicians leveraging resources to create misinformation and disinformation farms. Including third-party fact-checking on social media platforms remains essential in protecting online discourse from being fed lies.
Truth is not just an abstract ideal; it is the foundation of democracy. If we allow others to mislead us and distort history, we risk losing our ability to make sound decisions. As the 2025 Midterm Elections draw closer, we must harness our critical thinking skills to understand why we vote for someone—not just who we vote for. It’s especially crucial that we evaluate the information we encounter on online platforms, as it’s meant to persuade, not dictate.
Ultimately, the most powerful choice is an informed one.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s January 2025 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSJanuary2025.
