Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to replace professional fact-checkers on Meta platforms with a crowdsourced alternative called “Community Notes” is a clear signal the era of Big Tech accountability is over.

The founder, chairman and CEO of Meta also announced he will move trust and safety teams, which are responsible for enforcing policies around hate speech and disinformation, from California to the conservative stronghold of Texas. Framed as an effort to promote free speech, Zuckerberg says it, “will help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content.”

Nobel Peace Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa told CNN that this isn’t about free speech—it’s about consolidating power while shrugging off accountability. It leaves a gaping hole where press freedom and democracy should thrive.

Meta influences almost half the world’s population. It controls three of the top four platforms and its user base spans almost every demographic and geographic region. Facebook’s integrations with WhatsApp, Instagram, Threads and Messenger further expand its influence. By replacing fact-checking rooted in journalistic standards and ethics with random ‘Community Notes’ contributors as the arbiters of truth, Meta is reneging on its responsibility to ensure the integrity of information on its platforms. It risks becoming a global echo chamber for emotional manipulation.

This move isn’t happening in isolation. Elon Musk’s transformation of X has already shown us what happens when content moderation systems are dismantled. Musk replaced oversight with opaque algorithms and user-driven “context,” allowing misinformation to flourish under the guise of free speech. Like Musk, Zuckerberg is outsourcing responsibility to users ill-equipped to combat complex global disinformation, positioning itself as a passive bystander while its platform becomes a breeding ground for chaos and manipulation. Incidentally, X adopted Community Notes and rid itself of fact-checkers after Musk took over.

Napoleon Bonaparte famously said: “The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.”

Ressa has warned us about this very scenario: “It’s not a free speech issue; it’s a safety issue when you get rid of standards and ethics on a global platform. Facebook has replaced journalism as the gateway to information on a global platform. Without shared facts and a shared reality, how can you have a democracy that works?”

The global stakes are dire. According to the V-Dem Institute, 72 per cent of the world’s population now lives in autocracies, often led by elected leaders who dismantle democratic institutions such as the media, civil society, and the judiciary. This process is fueled by disinformation and polarization, eroding democracy from within.

Journalist Carol Off writes in her latest book, At a Loss for Words: Conversations in an Age of Rage, about the dangers of our present political predicament. “It’s not that we have differences of opinion; it’s that emotion is trumping logic and reason,” she writes. We’ll be talking to her about it on Jan. 22 in Ottawa.

By prioritizing profit and political expediency over accountability, Zuckerberg is gambling with the foundations of democracy. Absence of professional oversight doesn’t just amplify harm—it institutionalizes it. That leaves the press, marginalized voices, and democratic institutions to fend for themselves in an increasingly chaotic information landscape. Meta’s new battlefield isn’t about free speech—it’s about control. The bigger question is: who will emerge as the winner?