May 7, 2025 — Taipei Fact-Checking Forum. The second panel focused on the challenges Asian fact-checking organizations face as Meta considers ending its third-party fact-checking program. From left to right: Ms. Dulamkhorloo Baatar, Chairperson, Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development (Mongolia); Mr. Jency Jacob, Managing Editor, BOOM (India); Ms. Holly Nott, Head of AAP FactCheck (Australia); Ms. Celine Isabelle Samson, Head of VERA Files’ Online Verification Team (the Philippines). Moderated by Ms. Parul Goswami, Deputy Director, DataLEADS (India). (Photo: Dong Jhan Tsai)
Sustaining Fact-Checking in Asia: Insights and Strategies is one of the discussing sessions of the 2025 Fact-Checking Forum in Taipei, which is hosted by the Taiwan Fact-Check Center in May. It happened at a time when fact-checkers in Asia face uncertainty after Meta’s announcement to stop their third-party fact-checking in the United States.
This panel was joined by Mr. Jency Jacob, the Managing Editor of BOOM (India); Ms. Dulamkhorloo Baatar, Chairperson, Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development (Mongolia); Ms Holly Nott, Head of AAP FactCheck in Australia; and Ms. Celine Isabelle Samson, Head of VERA Files’ Online Verification Team (the Philippines). Our discussion was moderated by Ms. Parul Goswami, Deputy Director, DataLEADS (India).
Phuong-Thao Bui
The decision of Meta to terminate its third-party fact-checking partner program in the United States has become a point of concern for fact-checking organizations in Asia, prompting a wave of soul-searching from groups to explore alternative models of funding and reach, should the same happen here.
Our panelists agree that given Meta’s power, its departure is harmful to fact-checkers around the region not just in terms of access and funding, but also reputation. Some are experiencing the damage already, despite only partnerships in the US being terminated so far.
An overview of TFC’s work with Meta (in Chinese)
A blow to the validity of fact-checking
The implications of Meta’s exit are not all about funding, said Ms. Dulamkhorloo Baatar, Chairperson, Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development (Mongolia). The first and initial impact is the loss of access to the tool that they used to have as third-party fact-checking partners, and also which used to make their work efficient and influential. Given the loss when CrowdTangle went down, its damage, should it happen, should be quite predictable.
Dulamkhorloo Baatar, Chairperson, Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development. (Photo: Dong Jhan Tsai)
The next consequence is the threats that rise thanks to Meta’s exit. Meta did not just exit quietly, its tone was nasty, thus harmful to fact-checkers. By calling fact-checkers “politically biased”, Mark Zuckerberg simply threw all of them under the bus. “Calling factchecking a censorship tool is probably one thing that hit us most and instantly. Local bad actors started picking up that message,” said Ms. Dulamkhorloo Baatar.
She said that the Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development are the only metaphor third-party fact checking partner in Mongolia, and (fake) words are passing that they are closing down soon, now that Meta had “realised their mistake”. It cost the Nest Center many followers they have had built over the last 5 years, which hit instantly the night Mark Zuckerberg made the statement. The best they can do now is to talk more about themselves and build understanding around what they are doing.
Ms. Holly Nott, Head of AAP FactCheck (Australia), agrees that fact-checkers are being harmed not only by Meta’s decision, but Zuckerberg’s statement. The partnership with Meta has significantly amplified fact-checkers’ work; and should they depart, it would be difficult to find other partners with such resources.
“If you don’t have reach, what’s your relevance? Who are you doing this work for?” are the questions bound to rise. Without a broad and reachable audience, it would be difficult for fact-checking groups to explain to stakeholders and donors about the impact of their work. Revenue and reach are interconnected, so the exit by Meta would have many fact-checking organizations renovate and adapt, and the transition is gonna be painful.
At AAP Fact Check, even though they are not directly connected to Meta when it comes to funding, “it will 100% have an impact on what we do and how we look at the future”, said Ms. Hott. Meta’s exit has been seen by many other actors as a license to exit this space of fact-checking and verification. What they are seeing play out is, for instance, Google News Initiatives changing its policy on what it’s going to fund and how it will work with fact-checkers in the future. In general, Meta has not only chipped away the potential funding to fact-checking, but taken away the validity of the work itself.
What’s going to play out in Asia-Pacific after Meta’s exit is uncertain, and for fact-checkers in the Philippines, it’s even more confusing. Ms. Celine Isabelle Samson, Head of VERA Files’ Online Verification Team, recalled a legislative hearing in April, when Meta’s Director of Public Policy for Southeast Asia, Mr. Rafael Frankel, came and praised the role of the third-party fact-checking partnership program in safeguarding the information integrity on Facebook.
Celine Isabelle Samson, Head of VERA Files’ Online Verification Team (Photo: Dong Jhan Tsai)
“I quote him: ‘It is really the third parties that are most capable and most appropriate to determine the veracity of information. This is a parallel system that we have in place… the third party fact-checking system’’, she quoted him saying, which is completely opposite to what the Facebook CEO has said in January.
“The organization (Meta) seems to have an identity crisis”, said Ms. Samson. “this is not just confusing but also infuriating.” It is worth noting that the Philippines is very much “a Facebook country” where the platform is the most popular social media platform, so any changes from Meta on Facebook should have an even bigger impact on the nation’s information environment.
“How would community notes look like without fact-checking?”
With the termination of third-party fact-checking partnerships in the US, Meta now relies on community notes, a mechanism similar to what X (formerly Twitter) has been employing for a while. The change by Meta was applauded by the leadership from X. But community notes is far from a “silver bullet”.
Mr. Jency Jacob, the Managing Editor of BOOM (India), shares a recent study finding that the majority of people who put on community notes do it based on the information they read in a mainstream media article, or a fact-checking work, rather than do it intuitively (with knowledge they have beforehand). For people who care enough to write a community note, what has made their note creditable is a link directing to an earlier article or fact-check work, rather than just saying “your information is fake”. The study indicates that fact-checking work is essential for community notes to work efficiently. In other words, community notes work because they help amplify the work of fact-checkers.
Jency Jacob, the Managing Editor of BOOM, India. (Photo: Dong Jhan Tsai)
“If fact-checking does not exist, how are you gonna believe those community notes?”, said Mr. Jacob, suggesting the optimized safeguarding mechanism for platforms should be a mix of both community notes and fact-checking work.
Mr. Jacob also notes that fake news written in languages rather than English would be more immune against community notes, because there are more people willing to use community notes on English content. When it comes to regional languages, which happens to be numerous in India, the disappearance of fact-checking groups working specifically in those languages would blow hard to that ecosystem.
To keep the light on and pay the rent and continue the fact-check
Funding is essential, and the exit of Meta from fact-checking space in the US have made the organizations in Asia rethink about funding in a post-Meta era.
For people in BOOM, the pivot has confirmed a belief that they’d held for years, that their newsroom should remain small. Even before Meta’s exit, BOOM had attempted to diversify its revenue, putting on newsletters, and running media literacy workshops. When small, their newsroom has more freedom to “attack more ferociously” should they see something wrong, because there is much less influence of any funder. However, he acknowledged that the withdrawal of Meta will have many small organizations shut down totally. It would cause damage to the information ecosystem in a diverse country like India. BOOM only operates in three languages, and there are other groups at risk who have been doing fact-checking work with other languages.
AAP FactCheck, according to Ms. Hott, also recognized years ago that it’s risky to be beholden to one fund. The organization became a not-for-profit five years ago, and the fact-checking unit went from being a side hustle to the centre to the model. Being a not-for-profit allows them to have conversations with the government, civil society and philanthropists. The AAP FactCheck now talk to platforms about media literacy training, and use AI to help curate their content to different groups of audience.
There are actually many AI-powered tools being developed by fact-checking groups to enhance their work. All panelists are currently involved in building AI applications that help them scale up or cater to their audience’s needs. That would, for sure, come with a lot of questions on how and whether to employ the AI, and where to not. And they are going to do it while keeping an eye on what changes come next, after Meta’s notorious departure.