Meta’s Fact-Checking Exit
Meta Drops the Whistle, but Advertisers Aren’t Leaving the Field
My New Year’s resolution for 2025 was straightforward: no more pearl-clutching. When the next round of gnarly news drops, I’m not spiralling. I’m skipping the hot takes, popping in the earphones and listening to the actual source. Then, and only then, I’ll decide what it really means. For whatever that’s worth.
So here’s my take.
Imagine a soccer match where the referee suddenly says, “Play fair, I’m done making calls.” That’s essentially what Meta is doing by stepping away from fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram. The game will go on. The question is whether players stick to the rules or let chaos run wild.
What Does This Mean for Advertisers?
Not much, honestly.
If you’ve ever scrolled through a Facebook comment section, you’ll know Meta’s brand safety issues didn’t start with fact-checking, and they won’t end there. Between conspiracy pages, fight-watch groups (where I recently learnt what FAFO means), and some truly cooked comment threads, the playing field has long been wild. Brands are already used to dodging flying elbows.
So while headlines scream controversy, this shift probably won’t spark a mass advertiser exit. Most brands have already factored in the risk and are using custom controls and filters to protect their image.
Media Spend Still Follows Attention
Like it or not, brands go where the eyeballs are. According to Roy Morgan’s September 2024 media consumption data, Facebook still dominates for Australians aged 14 and over, with 78.3% monthly reach. Instagram follows at 56.7%, and X (formerly Twitter) lands at a surprisingly high 41.1%.
It’s not about moral purity. It’s about scale. Brands want platforms where people are actually interacting – not ones where users are just kicking a ball against a wall. Unless a platform completely tanks engagement, advertisers are unlikely to leave.
There is, of course, one exception – those awkwardly private platforms where user interaction is low. That’s a different kind of brand risk altogether.
Is Meta Cosying Up to Trump?
Some critics say the move is political, a signal to Trump ahead of a likely return to power. But as Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan, any timing would have been controversial. A year ago, it would’ve been labelled election interference. A year from now, it would be seen as caving to the next administration. Now, it’s being called preemptive alignment.
But really – if the referee was going to get booed either way, does it matter when he walks off the pitch?
A Shift, Not a Shock
Meta’s move away from centralised fact-checking isn’t a revolution. It’s a strategic adjustment. Zuckerberg is clearly watching X’s Community Notes closely. If they prove more effective than top-down moderation, expect others to follow suit.
For advertisers, this isn’t a crisis. It’s just another reminder to stay informed, understand the risks, and most of all, follow the audience.
Can Lexlab Help?
Lexlab isn’t just another media agency—it’s a strategic partner in precision media buying. If your brand wants smarter ad investments and real-time insights, explore Paid Social, Video Advertising or Native Advertising with us.
Contact us or explore our digital advertising services today.
