“Shameful”: Joe Biden Slams Meta & Mark Zuckerberg For Dropping Fact Checking In What Could Be Outgoing POTUS’ Last Press Conference - Deadline

# Shameful: Joe Biden Slams Meta & Mark Zuckerberg for Dropping Fact-Checking in What Could Be Outgoing POTUS’ Last Press Conference

In what could be one of his final press conferences as President of the United States, Joe Biden took a strong stance against Meta (formerly Facebook) and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for their decision to drop fact-checking on political content. Biden called the move "shameful," sparking a heated debate about the role of social media in democracy, misinformation, and free speech. Let’s break down the key elements of this story.

---

## Historical Background: The Evolution of Fact-Checking on Social Media

- **The Rise of Social Media**: Over the past two decades, platforms like Facebook have become central to how people consume news and engage in political discourse. However, this shift also brought challenges, such as the spread of misinformation and fake news.

- **Fact-Checking Initiatives**: In response to criticism, social media companies began partnering with third-party fact-checkers to flag or remove false content. This was seen as a step toward accountability, especially after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where misinformation played a significant role.

- **Meta’s Recent Decision**: In 2023, Meta announced it would no longer fact-check political content, arguing that it wanted to avoid accusations of bias and allow for open political debate. This decision has been controversial, with critics arguing it could lead to a surge in misinformation.

---

## General Public Opinion: Divided Views on Meta’s Decision

The public’s reaction to Meta’s decision and Biden’s criticism has been mixed:

- **Support for Biden**: Many agree with Biden, arguing that dropping fact-checking is irresponsible, especially during election seasons. They believe social media platforms have a duty to prevent the spread of harmful misinformation.

- *Example*: “If platforms like Facebook don’t take responsibility, who will? Misinformation can sway elections and harm democracy.”

- **Support for Meta**: Others defend Meta’s decision, claiming that fact-checking can be subjective and that social media companies should not act as arbiters of truth.

- *Example*: “Who decides what’s true or false? Fact-checkers can have biases too. Let people decide for themselves.”

- **Middle Ground**: Some believe that while fact-checking is important, it needs to be done transparently and without political bias to gain public trust.

---

## Counterarguments: Why Some Disagree with Biden

While Biden’s criticism resonates with many, there are valid counterarguments:

1. **Free Speech Concerns**: Critics argue that fact-checking can infringe on free speech, especially if it’s perceived as politically motivated.

2. **Bias Allegations**: Some claim that fact-checkers often lean left or right, making their work controversial and potentially unfair.

3. **Corporate Responsibility**: Others believe that social media companies are private entities and should not be forced to act as gatekeepers of truth.

---

## Implications: What This Means for the Future

The debate over Meta’s decision and Biden’s criticism has far-reaching implications:

- **Impact on Elections**: Without fact-checking, false claims could spread unchecked, potentially influencing voter behavior and election outcomes.

- **Trust in Media**: This controversy highlights the growing distrust in both social media and traditional media, as people question who they can rely on for accurate information.

- **Regulation**: Biden’s comments may reignite calls for government regulation of social media platforms, though this raises concerns about censorship and overreach.

- **Lessons Learned**: The situation underscores the need for a balanced approach to misinformation—one that protects free speech while minimizing harm to society.

---

## Conclusion

Joe Biden’s strong condemnation of Meta’s decision to drop fact-checking reflects a broader struggle over the role of social media in modern democracy. While some applaud his stance, others worry about the implications for free speech and corporate responsibility. As we move forward, finding a middle ground that balances accountability with freedom will be crucial. This debate is far from over, and its outcome could shape the future of information, politics, and society for years to come.