1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

Meta's decision to end third-party fact-checking raises valid concerns about the potential for misinformation to spread unchecked on its platforms. While the aim of free speech is understandable, completely unmoderated speech can lead to harm through the proliferation of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. A balanced approach that upholds free expression while also providing guard rails against demonstrably false or dangerous content would better serve the public interest. Legislation could mandate reasonable content moderation practices without infringing on constitutional free speech protections. For example, requiring robust community reporting systems, publicly available transparency reports, and defined consequences for repeatedly posting misinformation could help create a safer online environment. Social media companies should be expected to invest in effective content moderation rather than abdicating that responsibility entirely. Ultimately, online spaces should facilitate the open exchange of ideas and information, not serve as unfiltered distribution channels for misinformation that can sow confusion and conflict. Updating laws and policies to address this modern challenge is a reasonable step to protect the public while respecting free expression. A well-informed society requires access to facts and truth.