Meta, the parent company of Facebook, is rolling out significant changes to its fact-checking policies in the US, signaling a shift towards a more permissive approach to online speech. The move is seen as an attempt to align itself with the incoming Trump administration, which has been critical of European efforts to regulate online speech.

The changes, announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will see Meta switch from working with third-party fact-checkers to a crowd-sourced Community Notes model, similar to that used by X. The company is also loosening its restrictions on what users can say about women and LGBTQ individuals, citing concerns about over-removal of content. Zuckerberg claims this will lead to less inappropriate content being taken down, a common complaint from the right.

The move is seen as a response to the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), which holds large platforms like Meta accountable for removing illegal content and complying with their own terms of service. The DSA has been criticized by some as an attempt to censor online speech, and Trump has vowed to "push back" against European governments that are "going after American companies."

Experts warn that Meta's new approach could run into trouble in Europe, where the DSA's risk assessment and risk mitigation provisions could be interpreted to compel platforms to remove speech that is deemed harmful or "lawful but awful." While some argue that the DSA is not designed to suppress lawful disinformation, others worry that it could be used to justify over-removal of content.

A European Commission spokesperson declined to comment on Meta's announcement but emphasized that the EU will continue to monitor large online platforms for compliance with the DSA. The spokesperson noted that collaborating with independent fact-checkers can be an efficient way for platforms to mitigate systemic risks while respecting freedom of expression.

However, Meta's shift towards a more permissive approach to online speech has sparked concerns that it could create a dynamic that emboldens European regulators to take a harder stance against US platforms. As Daphne Keller, director of the program on platform regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center, notes, "He [Zuckerberg] will offend them, and they'll get their backup, and then they really will interpret it to give themselves broader powers and to be able to punish Meta more."

The global implications of Meta's shift are significant, as it highlights the growing tensions between the US and Europe over online speech regulation. With the incoming Trump administration likely to take a more protectionist stance, the stage is set for a showdown between tech companies, governments, and regulators over the boundaries of online speech.

In the midst of this geopolitical tension, Meta's decision to align itself with Trump's stance on online speech regulation raises important questions about the role of tech companies in shaping the global online landscape. As the world grapples with the complexities of online speech, it remains to be seen how Meta's shift will impact the global regulatory environment and the future of online discourse.