Why Meta’s moderation moves might boost the open web

Mark Zuckerberg’s seeming full embrace of Donald Trump’s presidency at this week’s inauguration has drawn further attention to his volte face on content moderation on Meta’s platforms and the disbanding of internal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) teams.

According to Meta’s global business head, Nicola Mendelsohn, its moderation and policy shifts won’t change anything for the digital advertising ecosystem. Yet with fact-checkers scrapped in favour of X-like community notes and revised hateful content rules set to permit more discriminatory language, there are growing concerns that a tide of fake news, misinformation and division could transform Meta’s dynamic — and significantly affect how much consumers trust publishers and brands associated with the platform.

Meta’s removal of fact-checkers and relaxation of discriminatory language permitted on its platforms puts advertisers in a bind. If brand safety is truly a concern, then the risk of placing ads beside misinformation or hate speech should result in decreased spending on Meta platforms.

But if they continue to spend regardless, then the argument for brand safety falls flat, at which point would it remain fair to hold open web publishers — who for years have experienced depressed revenues due to excessive flagging by brand safety tools — to higher standards than social media?

“In my opinion, brands should avoid using the Meta platforms and instead opt to invest in quality open web publishing,” said Fiona Salmon, managing director at Mantis, which assesses brand suitability. “High-quality journalism — content that has been developed with editorial integrity and fact-checking in place — should continue to be promoted and prioritised. On the whole, brands prefer not to run campaigns in comment-led user-generated content (UGC), so I expect to see a flourish in those leaving.”

Advertisers should consider not just the immediate brand safety risk presented by Meta’s changes, but also the wider implications of supporting platforms that might further destabilise the consensus on reality for future generations. In Meta’s case, users are provided the tools to create AI-generated content, while misinformation safeguards are removed.

“[Meta’s policy change] leans into the narrative around children and younger generations growing up with rife misinformation online, which is not something that previous generations have needed to consider,” Salmon added. “And now with AI too, I believe the lines between reality and deepfake content become even blurrier and harder to distinguish.”

Chris Dicker, CEO of multi-platform media company CANDR Media, echoed Salmon’s concerns: “In a world that is being filled with fake AI stories, independently verified fact- checking is even more important. In my view, it’s madness that Facebook would take this action. They had the option to try and become a more trusted source of information but have chosen the easier, cheaper route. The impact that this is going to have on its platform and its users remains to be seen but I can’t see how the general consumer benefits from this in any way.”

Now that Meta has fully opened the taps on misinformation and hate speech, Andrew Mole, CEO and co-founder of pubX, a company whose AI-driven tech helps increase publishers’ revenue, hopes that advertisers will begin to re-evaluate the environments in which they appear, but notes that Meta has always seemed to play by different rules.

“Meta has long been known as an easy opportunity to activate media spend at scale, yet it operates outside of the rigours required of publishers through a quirk of US legislation,” said Mole. “Meta has already pulled off the magic trick of bypassing concerns about appearing next to UGC — something other websites still suffer from. So, it will be interesting to see if this is the beginning of a tide turning for advertisers, or if they will continue to prioritise ease over quality.”

Alongside worries about what will happen within Meta’s walls, there is anxiety around wider consequences for the media space, and beyond. The past few years have seen many countries face disruption as the rise of misleading content reshapes political landscapes and some now fear such problems are only set to grow.

“This is not just about misinformation; it’s about the erosion of trust in public discourse,” said Jason Warner, managing director at programmatic curation company SBS. “Platforms of this scale wield immense influence, and with that influence comes a responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the information they disseminate. Accuracy in media is not a luxury — it’s a necessity for informed decision-making and the health of democratic systems.”

Industry experts are well aware that making room for different opinions is still vital to enrich public discourse with a diverse range of views. However, they also feel that greater care is needed to ensure the bar for media accuracy doesn’t slip too far, with completely unchecked misinformation posing increasingly serious societal risks.

“Striking the right balance between free expression and factual accountability is a monumental challenge, but it’s one we cannot afford to ignore,” said Warner. “The next few years will undoubtedly shape how fact-checking is managed on social and mainstream media. Will we prioritise truth and accountability, or will we allow the interests of the powerful few to dictate the narratives that shape our world?”

For those looking for a silver lining, Alex Distadio, head of publisher acquisition, Americas at global advertising platform MGID, suggests the Trump administration’s lean towards deregulation could result in more online activity and thus more traffic to publishers that distribute content across social media platforms: “Looser content restrictions may encourage greater user engagement and sharing, therefore driving more traffic toward the open web, particularly benefitting those publishers with strong monetisation strategies.”

However, this increased activity relies upon users remaining on such platforms, which Distadio does not see as a given: “The spread of misinformation is always a concern when removing the safeguards that have been put there to keep audiences safe. Not only does this present ethical and brand safety concerns, but it can also undermine user trust in platforms, harming the reputation of publishers associated with questionable content.”

This exposes the risky gamble Zuckerberg has taken by emulating Elon Musk’s transformation of X from digital public square to the new 4chan. Advertisers may be tentatively returning to X to appease an influential figure who will soon be embedded in the government, but it’s safe to assume Musk — in line to be the world’s first trillionaire — would simply bankroll X himself if he had to, as the platform serves his political ends.

Facebook and Instagram, on the other hand, are deeply reliant on being able to sell audiences. It is hard to believe LGBTQ+ people will be happy with being called mentally ill, or women referred to as household objects, both of which are now permitted on Meta platforms.

“Some people may leave our platforms for virtue signaling, but I think the vast majority and many new users will find that these changes make the products better,” Zuckerberg posted on Threads. Implicit in this statement is that the needs of minorities are a non-factor if the majority is catered for, and it’s worth questioning who Zuckerberg believes makes up this “majority”, given the deeply polarised nature of politics today.

Meta’s policy changes may increase engagement — controversy does, after all, drive clicks — but advertisers should pay attention