Meta’s Decision to End Fact-Checking Raises Concerns About Climate Misinformation

Meta’s recent announcement that it will terminate its fact-checking program and reduce content moderation efforts has sparked significant concern among experts who worry about the potential proliferation of climate misinformation on platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

The tech giant plans to end its agreements with U.S.-based third-party fact-checking organizations in March 2025, a decision that caught many of these partners by surprise. The changes will only affect content viewed by U.S. users, as Meta faces stricter regulations on misinformation in other regions, particularly the European Union.

Since 2020, Meta has employed a Climate Science Information Center on Facebook to combat climate misinformation. Under the current system, third-party fact-checkers flag false and misleading posts, after which Meta decides whether to attach warning labels and reduce algorithmic promotion of such content. The company’s policies have prioritized addressing “viral false information,” hoaxes, and “provably false claims that are timely, trending and consequential,” while excluding opinion content without false claims.

“This decision creates a significant vacuum in content verification, especially during climate disasters when accurate information is most crucial,” said Dr. Emma Richardson, a digital media researcher at Columbia University. “We’ve seen how quickly misinformation can spread during crises.”

Research shows that fact-checking effectively combats climate misinformation, though its success varies depending on individuals’ beliefs, ideology, and prior knowledge. Studies indicate that messages aligned with audience values, delivered by trusted messengers, can help counter false claims. This approach becomes particularly important as extreme weather events—intensified by climate change—create prime conditions for misinformation.

During disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, social media attention to climate issues typically spikes before quickly diminishing. These periods often see a surge in misinformation, recently complicated by low-quality AI-generated images. For example, after Hurricanes Helene and Milton in fall 2024, fake AI-generated images showing a shivering girl holding a puppy in a boat went viral on X (formerly Twitter), hampering FEMA’s disaster response efforts.

The landscape has become increasingly complex with the rise of coordinated disinformation campaigns. Following the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, researchers from organizations including Microsoft and the University of Maryland documented an organized propaganda campaign by Chinese operatives targeting U.S. social media users.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has cited X’s crowd-sourced Community Notes feature as inspiration for the company’s planned changes. However, research indicates that such user-generated fact-checking systems respond too slowly to prevent viral misinformation during its critical early spread.

Climate misinformation presents a particular challenge because false claims can be especially “sticky” and difficult to correct once they gain traction. Studies show that simply sharing more facts is insufficient to combat climate misinformation. Instead, “inoculation” approaches that prepare people by explaining scientific consensus before they encounter misinformation prove more effective.

“Timing is everything when it comes to combating misinformation,” said Dr. James Morton, an environmental communication specialist at Stanford University. “Once false narratives take hold, especially during crisis situations, they become extraordinarily difficult to dislodge.”

The implications extend beyond simple misunderstandings. During climate-fueled disasters, accurate information can be literally life-saving. This was evident in January 2025 when Los Angeles County mistakenly sent an evacuation alert to 10 million people during wildfires, creating confusion that misinformation could easily exploit.

Public sentiment appears to favor stronger moderation, with polls showing most Americans support restrictions on false information online. Despite this, major tech companies seem to be shifting responsibility for fact-checking onto their users.

As Meta moves forward with these changes, experts warn that crowd-sourced debunking will likely prove inadequate against organized disinformation campaigns, especially during information vacuums that emerge during environmental crises. Without robust fact-checking systems, conditions for the unchecked spread of misleading or false climate content may significantly worsen on these influential platforms.