Meta’s Fact-Checkers Battle Wildfire Misinformation Amid Looming Program Shutdown

Just hours after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the company’s decision to eliminate its U.S.-based fact-checking program, a new crisis ignited – literally. The hills above Los Angeles began to burn, and as fire crews fought to contain the devastation, Meta’s fact-checking partners faced their own battle: halting the spread of wildfire-related conspiracy theories online.

The decision to end Meta’s fact-checking program, expected to take effect by March, leaves its partners – trusted organizations like Lead Stories and PolitiFact – grappling with an uncertain future as misinformation surges on social media platforms.

Misinformation Spreads Like Wildfire

The wildfires in Los Angeles provided fertile ground for misinformation. Conspiracy theories swirled online, gaining traction on platforms like Instagram, Threads, and X (formerly Twitter). Alan Duke, co-founder of Lead Stories and a Los Angeles resident, worked with his team to tackle the viral falsehoods.

“Cutting fact-checkers from social platforms is like disbanding your fire department,” Duke remarked, reflecting on the critical role his organization plays in countering online rumors.

One widely shared Instagram video falsely claimed that men seen carrying a television from a home were looters. Lead Stories debunked this, confirming the men were the homeowners’ family members rescuing belongings. Meta flagged the post as misleading and reduced its visibility.

PolitiFact debunked other viral claims, including a false post alleging that Los Angeles police were searching for suspects linked to a MAGA website in connection with the fires. Another widely circulated image purported to show the iconic Hollywood sign engulfed in flames, which PolitiFact determined was generated by artificial intelligence.

A Familiar Pattern of Disaster Misinformation

The wildfire misinformation echoed similar patterns seen during past disasters, such as the 2023 Maui wildfires and recent hurricanes. In each instance, conspiracy theories gained momentum, eroding trust in emergency response agencies.

“The false claims we’re seeing about the wildfires are strikingly similar to what happened with recent hurricanes,” Duke explained. “They undermine trust in emergency agencies and make it harder for them to operate effectively during a crisis.”

Common themes included allegations that the fires were deliberately set by the government, claims of weather manipulation, and baseless theories about “space lasers” being used to ignite the flames. Alex Jones, a prominent conspiracy theorist, described the wildfires as part of a “globalist plot” to deindustrialize the United States. His post received millions of views on X and even garnered a response from Elon Musk, who replied, “True.”

Meta’s Decision Sparks Concern

Meta’s decision to eliminate its fact-checking program has drawn criticism from experts and fact-checking organizations. The program, launched after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, provides financial support to partners like Lead Stories, PolitiFact, and other outlets to combat misinformation.

Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to replace the program with a crowd-sourced system similar to X’s Community Notes. While Community Notes allows users to append context to misleading posts, critics argue it lacks the rigour of professional fact-checking.

Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, expressed concerns about the shift. “Professional fact-checkers can address complex conspiracy theories and political claims in ways that community-based systems simply cannot,” Holan said.

The Future of Online Fact-Checking

As the fires in Los Angeles rage on, the importance of fact-checking becomes more evident. However, Meta’s decision to eliminate professional oversight raises questions about the future of combating misinformation.

For now, fact-checkers like Duke and his team continue their work, extinguishing the digital flames of falsehoods. But as Meta’s financial support wanes, their ability to fight the next misinformation crisis remains uncertain.

“It’s not just about addressing false claims,” Duke said. “It’s about protecting trust in the systems and people responding to real-world crises. Without professional fact-checkers, that trust will erode further.”

The stakes are high, both for the fact-checkers working to preserve truth online and for the audiences increasingly exposed to unchecked misinformation.