Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is making sweeping changes to its content moderation and fact-checking practices in the United States, signaling a shift in its global strategy for handling online speech. This development underscores a widening divide between the United States and Europe over digital regulation and raises questions about the future of online free speech, platform accountability, and international relations in the tech industry.
As Meta pivots towards a new crowd-sourced model for content evaluation and loosens restrictions on controversial content, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has openly aligned his company’s interests with those of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
The move reflects a broader geopolitical tension, with Europe and the U.S. adopting increasingly divergent approaches to regulating digital platforms.
Table of Contents
A Content Moderation Overhaul in the U.S.
Meta’s latest policy changes mark a stark departure from its previous reliance on third-party fact-checkers. Instead, the company is adopting a crowd-sourced “Community Notes” model similar to the one used by X (formerly Twitter). This shift also includes reducing restrictions on inflammatory content, including statements that may be offensive to women and LGBTQ individuals.
Zuckerberg justified these changes by stating that fewer restrictions would ensure less legitimate content is improperly removed—a longstanding grievance among right-wing critics of Big Tech. However, this comes at the cost of allowing “lawful but awful” content, such as misogynistic or homophobic commentary, to remain visible on Meta’s platforms for longer periods.
This approach seems tailored to appeal to conservative voices in the U.S., many of whom have accused tech companies of suppressing free speech. Daphne Keller, a platform regulation expert at Stanford University, suggested that Meta’s policy changes are strategically aligned with Trump’s anticipated pushback against Europe’s stricter digital policies. “The inflection point is Trump, and Facebook is just following along,” Keller explained, adding that Meta is positioning itself as “pro-free speech” in opposition to European regulations.
Check also: Meta and Oracle Forge Revolutionary AI Partnership to Power Llama Models
Europe’s Digital Services Act: A Contrasting Approach
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) represents a stark contrast to Meta’s new direction. The DSA enforces strict rules on content moderation, holding platforms accountable for promptly removing illegal content and material that violates their own terms of service. Penalties for non-compliance can reach up to 6% of a company’s annual global revenue.
While Meta has stated that it will continue to remove illegal content under European law, its looser stance on harmful yet lawful content—such as degrading comparisons of women to household objects—may clash with the EU’s expectations. European regulators, including European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier, have emphasized that collaboration with independent fact-checkers is an effective way for platforms to mitigate risks such as disinformation and threats to electoral integrity.
Although the DSA does not explicitly mandate the removal of lawful but harmful content, its provisions on risk assessment and mitigation could be interpreted to require platforms to address such material more proactively. Critics, however, fear these regulations could morph into mechanisms for censorship. Martin Husovec, a law professor at the London School of Economics, has argued that concerns about the DSA creating a “Ministry of Truth” are overstated, though he acknowledges the potential for misuse.
You may also like: Meta Quest 3 VR with New YouTube Watch Party Feature
A Brewing Transatlantic Standoff
Meta’s decision to scale back fact-checking and moderation efforts may also escalate tensions with European regulators. By framing Europe’s policies as censorship and aligning with the Trump administration’s protectionist stance, Zuckerberg risks provoking a stronger regulatory backlash.
Keller warned that such rhetoric could embolden European regulators to adopt an even stricter stance against Meta and other U.S. platforms. “He will offend them, and they’ll get their backup,” she noted, adding that this dynamic could reinforce the very perception of Europe as a censor that Zuckerberg is seeking to combat.
Moreover, Europe’s political landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented. The rise of far-right and populist parties across the continent has weakened the unified stance on cultural and social issues that previously characterized European policymaking. While this may create opportunities for Meta to exploit divisions within the EU, it also complicates the regulatory environment.
Despite these challenges, Meta’s approach to content moderation will likely remain stricter in Europe than in the U.S. This is partly due to laws prohibiting certain types of speech—such as Holocaust denial—that are protected under the First Amendment in the United States.
The cultural and legal differences between the two regions highlight the complexity of applying a single moderation standard globally.
