Meta, the operator of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, has announced that it will no longer rely on third-party fact-checking services, a move that coincides with pressure from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) head Brendan Carr. The decision has sparked concerns about government influence on free speech and online moderation, as well as the potential implications for the spread of misinformation online.

The announcement comes just two weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, with Carr set to become the new FCC chairman. In a letter sent to Meta, Apple, Google, and Microsoft in mid-November, Carr attacked the companies' fact-checking programs, accusing them of participating in a "censorship cartel" and threatening to review their activities under Section 230 of the Communications Act. Section 230 is a prized liability shield that protects tech companies from legal liability for user-generated content, and Carr's threat has been seen as a veiled attempt to strong-arm companies into complying with his views on free speech.

Carr's letter was primarily focused on NewsGuard, a conservative bête noire that Meta doesn't actually work with. However, it also demanded information about "the use of any media monitor or fact-checking service," leaving no doubt about Carr's position on them. The incoming Trump administration and Congress, he continued, would take "broad-ranging actions" that could include reviewing companies' activities as well as efforts by third-party organizations and groups that have acted to curtail speech rights.

Experts have questioned the legality of Carr's threats, citing the doctrine of Chevron deference, which limits the FCC's authority to regulate online speech. However, Carr's move has still sent a chill through the tech industry, with many companies already wary of government interference in their moderation practices. Meta's decision to abandon third-party fact-checking has been seen as a concession to Carr's demands, although the company has denied any direct link between the two.

Fact-checking has long been a contentious issue for social media companies, with many arguing that it is an essential tool for combating misinformation online. However, others have raised concerns about the potential for fact-checking to stifle free speech and impose a particular ideological viewpoint on users. Meta's decision to drop third-party fact-checking has been seen as a pragmatic move, given the controversy surrounding the practice, but it has also raised concerns about the company's commitment to combating misinformation.

Ultimately, Meta's decision highlights the complex and often fraught relationship between tech companies, government regulators, and free speech advocates. As the online landscape continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how companies will balance their responsibilities to moderate content with their commitment to protecting free speech and promoting online diversity.