Meta’s Bold Move: The End of Fact-Checkers and the Rise of Community Notes

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In a surprising turn of events, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta, recently announced a significant shift in how the platform manages information. The removal of traditional fact-checkers in favor of Community Notes has sparked widespread debate across the digital landscape. While this move claims to return Facebook to its roots of free expression, it raises questions about its implications for misinformation, freedom of speech, and the evolving role of social media in modern society.

The Announcement: A New Chapter for Free Speech

Zuckerberg’s declaration, “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression,” underscores a shift toward decentralizing truth verification on the platform. He emphasized that Community Notes, a feature already in use on X (formerly Twitter), will take over the responsibility of contextualizing and clarifying controversial posts. The goal? To simplify policies, reduce errors, and empower users to engage critically with the information they encounter.

For many, this move signifies a long-overdue acknowledgment of the issues surrounding biased fact-checking and censorship. Critics of the previous system have argued that traditional fact-checkers often carried agendas that suppressed dissenting views under the guise of “misinformation.” From pandemic debates to gender politics, many users claim to have been unfairly penalized for expressing opinions or sharing data that went against mainstream narratives.

The Reaction: Celebration and Skepticism

The announcement has been met with both praise and apprehension. Proponents hail it as a step toward restoring balance and integrity to the platform. Many see it as an overdue reckoning with the excesses of the “woke era,” where dissenting voices were allegedly silenced in favor of ideological conformity.

Statements like “2025 is the year of truth” and “the world is healing” echo optimism among users who believe this change will lead to greater accountability and free exchange of ideas. For others, Zuckerberg’s newfound advocacy for free speech is viewed as a strategic pivot, aligning with shifting public sentiment and political trends.

Skeptics, however, warn of potential pitfalls. Critics point out that without fact-checkers, the platform may become a haven for misinformation, troll farms, and bots. As one user noted, “Good news for bots and troll farms. Now they can sway opinions just by their overwhelming number regardless of truth.”

The fear is that Community Notes, while well-intentioned, may lack the necessary safeguards to prevent bad actors from manipulating public discourse.

Community Notes: A Double-Edged Sword

Community Notes, originally developed by Elon Musk’s X, operates on the principle of crowdsourced moderation. A subset of users can contribute notes to posts, offering additional context or corrections. The system relies on diverse participation and an algorithm that prioritizes consensus among contributors with varying viewpoints.

While this approach encourages collaboration and reduces centralized control, it is not immune to exploitation. Concerns about troll farms and organized misinformation campaigns remain valid. However, advocates argue that Community Notes also empowers individuals to develop critical thinking skills and navigate information independently—an essential skill in the age of digital media.

Critical Thinking vs. Oversight: The Broader Debate

The shift from fact-checkers to Community Notes highlights a broader debate about the role of social media platforms in policing content. Should platforms act as arbiters of truth, or should they allow users to discern fact from fiction?

Supporters of the change argue that reliance on centralized fact-checkers has fostered complacency, where users expect platforms to think for them. As one commenter aptly put it, “Bad people and lies exist everywhere. Best to learn how to spot them for yourself instead of requiring a politician to do it for you.”

Opponents, however, stress that critical thinking alone cannot combat the scale and sophistication of modern misinformation. Expert oversight, they argue, is still necessary to prevent the spread of harmful falsehoods that can have real-world consequences.

Zuckerberg’s Motivations: Pragmatism or Principles?

Zuckerberg’s move has sparked speculation about his motivations. Some view it as a genuine commitment to free expression, influenced by personal growth and a desire to rectify past mistakes. Others see it as a calculated business decision aimed at simplifying Meta’s operations and regaining public trust after years of controversy.

By aligning with a growing demand for free speech and decentralization, Zuckerberg may also be positioning Meta as a platform that appeals to a broader audience, including those disillusioned by the perceived biases of other social media platforms.

The Road Ahead: A New Era or the Same Challenges?

While the removal of fact-checkers marks a significant shift, it is not without risks. The success of Community Notes will depend on its implementation, transparency, and resistance to manipulation. Meta must strike a delicate balance between fostering free expression and preventing the spread of harmful misinformation.

As Zuckerberg himself noted, this move represents a “next chapter” for Meta. Whether it becomes a beacon for free speech or a battleground for misinformation remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that this decision will have far-reaching implications for the future of social media and its role in shaping public discourse.

Conclusion

The replacement of fact-checkers with Community Notes is a bold experiment in decentralizing truth verification. It challenges users to take greater responsibility for discerning truth, while also exposing the platform to new vulnerabilities. As Meta embarks on this new chapter, the world watches with equal parts hope and skepticism. Will this be the era of truth and transparency, or simply a new guise for the same old problems? Only time will tell.

Small-Scale Fishers Rally Against Supreme Court Ruling Favoring Commercial Fishing Operators

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The battle for the country’s municipal waters has reached the steps of the Supreme Court. 300 municipal fishers, united under the Katipunan ng mga Kilusan ng mga Artisanong Mangingisda sa Pilipinas (KKAMPi), alongside environmental advocates from the NGOs for Fisheries Reform (NFR), gathered in Manila to file a petition against the controversial Mercidar RTC Malabon ruling. This decision has effectively paved the way for commercial fishing vessels to encroach on municipal fishing waters, a move that threatens the livelihoods of small-scale fisherfolk and imperils the nation’s already fragile marine ecosystems.

A Fight for Livelihood and Legacy

At the forefront of the legal battle are four small-scale fishers representing the interests of countless others:

Justino “Ka Tino” Dacillo, a veteran fisher from Polillo, Quezon, and Chair of the Lamon Bay Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council.

Roberto Ballon, a Ramon Magsaysay Awardee from Sibugay, Zamboanga, credited with revitalizing their community’s fishing industry.

Jessie delos Reyes, a BFAR-certified Fish Examiner and active member of Calatagan Bantay Dagat in Batangas.

Erlinda Ferrer, a fisher and mother of three from Cavite City.

They argue that allowing large-scale commercial fishing operations in municipal waters—areas traditionally reserved for small-scale fishers—would obliterate local economies, further deplete already overfished resources, and intensify the struggles of communities already grappling with climate change.

“Magkakagulo ang pangisdaan sa Pilipinas kung papayagan ang malalaking mangingisda na pumasok sa tinatawag na municipal waters ng Pilipinas (The fisheries sector of the country will be in turmoil if large fishing operators are allowed to enter municipal waters),” said Ka Tino, voicing the collective fears of municipal fishers nationwide.

The Numbers Speak

The petition highlights stark disparities in fishing capabilities:

A commercial vessel using purse seine nets can haul in 3,055 kilograms of fish per hour.

In contrast, small-scale fishers using hook and line manage a mere 0.49 kilograms per hour.

This inequity is amplified by the fact that a single day’s harvest by a commercial vessel equals the combined output of 1,500 municipal fishers.

The petitioners argue that the ruling not only devastates livelihoods but also accelerates the depletion of marine resources. Overfishing, compounded by climate change, has already strained the nation’s fisheries. Allowing industrial-scale operations in municipal waters could push ecosystems to the brink.

A Decision with Nationwide Consequences

“Sa kanilang desisyon, pinatay ng Korte Suprema ang karapatan, kabuhayan at kinabukasan ng maliliit na mangingisda sa Pilipinas (With their decision, the Supreme Court has extinguished the rights, livelihood, and future of all small fisherfolk in the Philippines),” lamented Roberto Ballon, who is also vying for a Senate seat in the upcoming May 2025 elections.

The stakes of this legal battle extend far beyond the fishing communities. Municipal waters, defined as areas within 15 kilometers from the shore, are vital breeding grounds for marine life. The intrusion of commercial fishing operations not only risks overexploitation but also disrupts the delicate balance required for sustainable fishing practices.

A Unified Front

The petition is supported by a coalition of fisherfolk organizations and environmental groups, including KKAMPi, the National Union of Rural-Based Organizations (PKSK), and the NGOs for Fisheries Reform. These groups have long championed the rights of small-scale fishers and the protection of marine biodiversity.

Among the petition’s backers are:

Philippine Alliance of Tuna Handliners for Sustainability (PATHS)

Tanon Strait Fisherfolks Alliance

Visayan Sea Fisherfolks Alliance

BALAOD Mindanaw

Tambuyog Development Center

These organizations emphasize that the ruling undermines the 1998 Fisheries Code, which was designed to protect municipal waters for the exclusive use of small-scale fishers.

A Call to Action

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the petition, the rallying cry of the municipal fishers echoes across the nation. They demand justice not only for their livelihoods but also for future generations who depend on the sustainability of the country’s marine resources.

The case serves as a reminder that the fight for environmental justice is inseparable from the struggle for social equity. In defending the rights of small-scale fishers, these petitioners are also safeguarding the nation’s food security, economic resilience, and ecological future.

The Legal and Political Aspects of the Case Between Vic Sotto and Darryl Yap

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

There has been a surge of questions regarding whether Vic Sotto can sue Darryl Yap, considering that only a teaser for The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma (TROPP) was posted, not the full film. The short answer is yes, Vic Sotto can indeed pursue legal action.

In the Philippines, a person can be sued for libel if four key elements are present:

Defamation

Identification

Publication

Malice

Let’s break these down in the context of the issue at hand.

1. Defamation

The teaser for The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma (TROPP) includes a potentially defamatory accusation — it implies that Vic Sotto is a rapist. Defamation includes any accusation of vice, crime, or moral deficiency, and an accusation of rape certainly qualifies.

2. Identification

In the teaser, Vic Sotto is clearly identified when a character asks, "Rinape ka ba ni Vic Sotto?" ("Did Vic Sotto rape you?"). This direct mention unmistakably singles out Vic Sotto in the context of the accusation.

3. Publication

The teaser was posted on Darryl Yap's official Facebook page and other social media platforms, making it a public publication. Once something is made available to the public, the element of publication is satisfied.

4. Malice

Malice is an essential element of libel. Vic Sotto claims that he was not consulted by Darryl Yap or any of the actors involved regarding the depiction of this issue. In fact, Darryl Yap himself has admitted that he never informed or consulted Vic Sotto about the teaser. This lack of consultation suggests malice, as it indicates that the truthfulness of the claim wasn’t given proper consideration.

Vic Sotto will argue that Yap acted maliciously by disregarding the truth or falsity of the rape accusation. Sotto could also point to the Affidavit of Desistance from Pepsi Paloma, which could suggest that no criminal charges were filed or convictions made against him.

At a glance, all the elements of libel appear to be present.

Can Darryl Yap Defend Himself?

In my previous post, I mentioned that I would need to see the full film to better understand Yap’s motivations and assess his defense. However, as it pertains to the teaser, Yap might claim that the teaser was accurate in stating that Vic Sotto was once accused of rape by Pepsi Paloma, even though Paloma later withdrew her accusation.

Yap may argue that the teaser only shows Pepsi Paloma’s original statement, where she allegedly told a confidante about the rape before she retracted it. In this defense, Yap would claim, "It’s true that Pepsi Paloma accused Vic Sotto of rape, and that’s all the trailer shows."

However, there’s a major problem here.

The teaser doesn’t clearly communicate that Pepsi Paloma later withdrew her accusation. Moreover, Darryl Yap is not known for producing historically accurate films or documentaries. He has built a reputation as a polemic and political filmmaker, not someone dedicated to presenting factual historical events. As such, his defense of truth becomes weak, as his films are not typically regarded as reliable sources of factual accuracy.

The way the teaser is presented, it leaves a clear impression that Vic Sotto is guilty of rape, which could easily be deemed libelous by a court of law.

What About the Full Film?

Regarding the full film, there are reports that Vic Sotto has filed a legal motion in connection with the case, specifically seeking a writ of habeas data to prevent Darryl Yap from airing or publishing the movie. It’s unclear whether this motion was part of the same lawsuit or a separate one, but if true, the court has reportedly ordered Yap to desist from airing or publishing the full film.

This is where things get a little complicated. The use of a writ of habeas data to stop the publication of a film is unusual. One might wonder why Vic Sotto’s lawyers chose this particular legal tool. But then again, Atty. Buko Dela Cruz (a figure associated with the BBM Party List, and a somewhat controversial character) is known for his unconventional methods.

Good luck to Vic Sotto’s legal team, because Yap has a solid legal basis to argue for the right to air or publish the film. The issue of prior restraint — the government or the courts blocking the publication or dissemination of content before it happens — is a significant matter. In legal terms, prior restraint is highly frowned upon when it involves freedom of expression.

A Long Legal Battle Ahead

This is a complicated case, and I won’t dive deeper into every legal intricacy since I am not paid to represent either side. However, what stands out is that Darryl Yap has finally met someone who will challenge him after years of releasing controversial content, such as his LenLen series and other polemical works that have targeted public figures.

It’s been reported that Yap is already a millionaire, so it will be interesting to see if he can afford the potentially hefty P35 million lawsuit filed by Vic Sotto. This case could end up being drawn out all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the end, the outcome will depend on how both parties navigate the intricate world of Philippine law, media freedom, and defamation. It’s a fascinating legal battle that will set precedents for future cases involving accusations made through media and film.

*Based on the social media post of Jesus Falcis on his Facebook page but it was written in Tagalog.