I won't defend Meta here but I have a contrarian view: Fact-checking was not working and facts aren't the issue; belief and belonging are and that's a much deeper problem.
Meta to End Fact-Checking Program in Shift Ahead of Trump Term https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/07/business/meta-fact-checking?smid=tw-share
Meta to End Fact-Checking Program in Shift Ahead of Trump Term

The social networking giant will stop using third-party fact-checkers on Facebook, Threads and Instagram and instead rely on users to add notes to posts. It is likely to please President-elect Trump and his allies.

The New York Times
Journalism, Belief, & Belonging - Whither news? - Medium

I increasingly come to see that we are not in a crisis of information and disinformation or even of misguided beliefs, but instead of belonging. I wonder how to reimagine journalism to address this…

Whither news?
Meta has a much deeper issue to address around alienation from communities, bigotry, fear, & othering. Fact-checking won't fix that. What's needed is social-science research, and that requires openness and data from Meta, about which they are only occasionally forthcoming.
I wrote this in my book, The Web We Weave about fact-checking:
https://jeffjarvis.com
Jeff Jarvis

Author of "The Web We Weave: Why We Must Reclaim the Internet from Moguls, Misanthropes, and Moral Panic." On sale now.

Jeff Jarvis
As for Meta, I am much more disturbed about replacing Nick Clegg with Trumpist Joel Kaplan and the new board members. Zuckerberg is not just obeying in advance, he is paying tribune in advance. The extremists are cheering for they called fact-checking censorship. BS.
Of course, I'm all for facts. But journalists fetishize facts because they think they are in the facts business. I've long said the mission for news--and social media--should be to make strangers less strange, to disarm the power of othering: a journalism of belonging. That's harder, much harder.
@jeffjarvis yes well that’s not the mission is it? The mission is to make money. And if there are no constraints on how you do it then the mission is the opposite of what you want it to be.
@jeffjarvis interesting, I never thought of the parallel, but this may be similar for social science research
@jeffjarvis With deliberate filtering of certain words... yes, that's how it goes, they organize conversations about the various themes according to their own mind. We know who's. Digital Czar who's there for the incoming Caligula.

@jeffjarvis I would counter that social science research is necessary and insufficient, and that most of the research has already been completed, but that progressives tend to disregard it: particularly when its conclusions imply that we (those supporting equity and facts and all that the fascists hate) and are among those who conduct must change if the regression towards fascism is to be stopped without war.

We accept the consensus of scientific evidence, so long as it indicates someone Other must do differently. For example, and to your point about belonging: the evidence is conclusive that belonging and such emotional needs beget belief, yet we shame, and scold, and ostracize, and categorically disparage certain involuntary identity groups, faulting each individual therein for the misconduct of other members (including events preceding their birth), blaming individuals for social structures they cannot begin to alter without us, and dismissing their suffering and trauma because they’re not the same as ours.

And then, by way of dismissing them, rather than empathizing, we tell them, “do the work,” in condescending exasperation, by which we mean “read these three dozen books, each requiring collegiate literacy to comprehend,” while disregarding that their norm is fifth-grade literacy, that access to upgrading classes are a class privilege, that post-secondary education is a class privilege, that recreational reading time is a class privilege, and that expecting anyone to believe you or do as you say after you just finished telling them off is absurd.