Meta’s recent announcement to abandon third-party fact-checking in favour of a community-driven moderation model has sparked intense debate in our industry. Critics claim it’s a capitulation to political pressure, with some even accusing CEO Mark Zuckerberg of 'bending the knee to the far right'. But this narrative overshadows a more pragmatic reality: this course correction is not merely expedient; it’s the right move for Meta, its shareholders, and, more importantly, the advertising industry and audiences at large.
This shift represents an overdue recalibration that acknowledges the pitfalls of centralised fact-checking and overreach in content moderation. It’s an opportunity for the industry to move beyond ideological battles and root its strategies in audience realities and data-driven insights. After all, if we truly value being data-driven, the first data point to consider is what audiences are leaning towards.
The rise and fall of fact-checking
The current fact-checking model on social media evolved after 2016 into a specialised subfield aimed at combating 'fake news'. While its intentions were initially noble, the execution became fraught with deep political biases and operational inefficiencies. By delegating truth arbitration to third parties with their own agendas, Meta inadvertently turned these partnerships into tools of censorship rather than instruments of truth and enlightenment.
Even Nate Silver, a renowned statistician and pollster, has acknowledged this overreach, noting that fact-checkers often acted as 'high priests' of truth, undermining the very trust they sought to build. Unfortunately, the advertising industry blindly followed this without questioning it. Meta’s pivot to Community Notes acknowledges this failure and represents a shift back towards free expression and user empowerment.
The advertising industry’s bias problem
The advertising world, despite its best intentions, has not been immune to biases, particularly in its anti-Trump leanings. This politicisation is unhealthy for the industry and undermines its bedrock principle: truth. As David Ogilvy famously said: "Tell the truth but make it fascinating". Allowing personal preferences to overshadow audience realities risks alienating users and eroding trust.
Meta’s move is a wake-up call for advertisers to ground their strategies in data and audience sentiment rather than ideological battles. If the audience leans towards less restrictive moderation, the industry must adapt to those preferences while maintaining authenticity and accountability.
Why Meta’s pivot Is the right move
Meta’s decision to move away from third-party fact-checking reflects a strategic alignment with its core priorities: operational efficiency, audience sentiment, and advertiser trust. By integrating AI and large language models (LLMs), Meta has streamlined its processes, enabling faster and more consistent enforcement while reducing reliance on human moderators. This transition also acknowledges the growing audience demand for lighter, less intrusive moderation—a shift that fosters trust and engagement, critical metrics for advertisers.
In my view, the adoption of the Community Notes model, inspired by Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), further reinforces Meta’s focus on decentralisation and transparency. While this approach empowers users to add context and ensure accountability, it doesn’t fully address the specific, granular needs of advertisers. The advertising industry must complement this shift with independent, third-party verification systems, such as DoubleVerify and IAS. These tools provide real-time, flexible content compliance metrics, allowing brands to define their own standards of 'ad-visibility kosherness' based on unique preferences, risk tolerance, and audience expectations.
By integrating these solutions, the industry can achieve a balance between transparency and accountability, ensuring innovation aligns with trust and delivering measurable, consistent frameworks that serve both platforms and advertisers.
A call to action for APAC CMOs and agency leaders
In regions like APAC, where cultural and regulatory nuances shape campaigns, this shift offers both challenges and opportunities. Lighter moderation policies allow brands to craft locally resonant messages while navigating diverse audience expectations. By adopting third-party tools to dynamically manage brand safety, APAC’s leaders can set new benchmarks for responsible advertising.
Meta’s pivot is more than a course correction; it’s a challenge to the industry to rethink its approach to moderation, truth, and audience engagement. The future of advertising lies in data-driven personalisation—rooted in the truths of what audiences value and expect—rather than projecting personal biases onto them.
Personalisation fosters trust, builds connections, and delivers impactful campaigns, while personal biases risk alienating the very people brands aim to engage. By bending the knee to the right things—truth, trust, and audience realities—the industry can embrace decentralisation, empower independent verification systems, and thrive on authenticity and innovation in equal measure.
Ramakrishnan Raja regularly shares his opinion with Campaign Asia-Pacific. He is the principal at marketing company Resonant.