The timing of this announcement is not seen as coincidental by American analysts. With Trump’s imminent return to the White House, Zuckerberg seems intent on mending ties with the Republican administration, which were strained after the suspension of Trump’s social media accounts following the 6 January 2021 Capitol riots. It’s no surprise, then, that Meta has chosen this direction now, at a time when the American political climate increasingly favours an expansive interpretation of free speech, often at the expense of efforts to combat misinformation and online hate.

The implications of this decision extend beyond the United States. While the new policies will not, for now, be applied in Europe – where regulations like the Digital Services Act impose stricter standards on digital platforms – Zuckerberg’s announcement still sends a strong message: the era of moderation as a core principle of social networks may already be over. The CEO’s remarks against Europe, accusing it of institutionalising censorship through suffocating regulations, suggest growing tensions between the two sides of the Atlantic regarding how to manage the power of big tech.

Yet, despite the rhetoric about free speech, critics see this move as profoundly political. The recent appointment of figures close to the Republican Party within Meta’s ranks, such as Joel Kaplan and Dana White, reinforces the idea that Zuckerberg is forging a strategic alliance with the American right. This strategy also reflects Zuckerberg’s personal trajectory, as he increasingly aligns himself with conservative circles, weary of regulatory pressures and criticism during the Biden administration.

What lies ahead? Could eliminating fact-checking genuinely lead to greater freedom of expression, as Zuckerberg claims, or is it more likely to result in further erosion of trust in digital platforms? Who will ensure that the “Community Notes” system does not become fertile ground for organised manipulation? And, most importantly, what responsibilities will platforms assume when the consequences of unchecked discourse manifest in the real world, through violence, pandemic misinformation, or challenges to democratic institutions?

The abolition of fact-checking is not just an operational decision; it is an ideological manifesto that redefines the role of platforms in the 21st century. But while Zuckerberg celebrates a return to “freedom of expression,” it remains to be seen what the cost of this choice will be – for the platforms themselves and for society at large. After all, the crucial question is this: how much does freedom really cost when it knows no bounds?