Zuckerberg’s latest stunt, gutting Meta’s fact-checking system and replacing it with “community notes” isn’t just reckless; it’s deliberate. If it feels familiar, that’s because it’s a page straight out of Elon Musk’s “X” playbook. But while Musk’s chaos parade was loud and obvious, Zuckerberg’s version is wrapped in a fake crusade for “free speech.” Don’t be fooled. This move isn’t about giving power to the people; it’s about fuelling engagement by pouring petrol on the dumpster fire of online discourse. Outrage drives clicks, and clicks fill Meta’s coffers. The implications for cyber safety, trust, and society are potentially catastrophic.
Welcome to the new reality Zuckerberg is building, where truth is fractured into a thousand pieces, each weaponised by trolls, bots, and bad actors. With no fact-checking guardrails and algorithms amplifying, whatever keeps you scrolling is not about truth; it’s about volume.
The loudest, most polarising content will win.
Meta profits from this chaos. Every angry comment and every heated argument over misinformation on a community board all feed the engagement machine. And let’s be honest: the more broken the discourse is, the more money Zuckerberg makes. Hate speech? Bring it. Extremism? Perfect for engagement. Conspiracy theories? They’re practically printing money. This is a calculated move to keep you angry, scrolling, and glued to the platform while Zuckerberg counts his ad revenue.
Who suffers the most in this chaos? Teens already struggling with mental health, marginalised communities fighting for visibility, and anyone just trying to make sense of this mess. They’re left defenceless in online worlds where misinformation spreads like wildfire. Let’s not forget that this is happening in an era where generative AI is turbocharging fake content. Deepfakes, hyper-targeted propaganda, and bots pretending to be humans aren’t science fiction anymore. And with no safety nets in place, the damage will be brutal.
Zuckerberg likes to dress this up as a commitment to “free speech.” But this isn’t about democracy. It’s about dollars. Removing fact-checking isn’t empowering users, it’s handing the keys to the castle over to trolls, bots, and the highest bidder. This is strategic. Meta’s move lines up perfectly with the return of figures like Trump to the platform. The timing isn’t a coincidence. When the tsunami of misinformation hits, Zuckerberg will stand back and shrug, claiming it’s all part of the “marketplace of ideas.” Meanwhile, he’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.
In this fractured reality, cyber safety education isn’t just important it’s non-negotiable. Traditional lessons about avoiding phishing scams and creating strong passwords won’t cut it anymore. The challenge now is teaching people especially parents, so they can be continuously guiding their kids on how to navigate a world where every post could be a manipulation. Critical thinking has to be the foundation of this fight. And it starts young. I’m talking dinner-table conversations with kids as young as three. Why? Because the earlier we teach them to ask, “Is this real?” or “Who benefits from this?” the better equipped they’ll be to deal with the onslaught of misinformation headed their way.
Talk About What You See Online
Ads, memes, videos and break them down. Ask questions like, “What’s missing here?” or, “What do you think this is trying to make us believe?” “Make it a game.
Make Fact-Checking Fun
Teach kids (and adults!) to use tools like Snopes, and reverse image searches. Show them how easy it is to verify a claim and, more importantly, why it matters.
Model Healthy Scepticism
Show that questioning isn’t about shutting people down it’s about understanding. Ask things like, “Who profits if this goes viral?” or “Why might someone share this?”
Teens are the most vulnerable to the chaos Zuckerberg and others are unleashing on popular. Platforms like Instagram. Their brains are still developing, particularly in areas that govern impulse control, critical thinking, and emotional regulation. Social media algorithms are engineered to exploit those very vulnerabilities, hooking teens with outrage, validation loops, and endless scrolling. In a world where harmful content, misinformation, hate speech, and extremist propaganda spreads unchecked, we’re essentially throwing kids into a lion’s den and telling them to fend for themselves.
The damage is already showing. Studies consistently link heavy social media use among teens to skyrocketing rates of anxiety, depression, and body image issues. Add a fractured online reality to the mix, and the consequences become even more severe, young people who can’t distinguish fact from fiction, who absorb misinformation without question, and who are conditioned to engage in toxic online conversations.
Banning kids under 16 from these platforms isn’t about stifling their freedom; it’s about giving them time to develop the resilience and critical thinking skills they’ll need to navigate this chaos moving forward. Platforms like Meta won’t prioritise safety unless we force their hand, and one way to do that is by drawing a hard line… no kids allowed.
What Else Needs to Happen?
Algorithms need oversight. Period. Governments should require platforms like Meta to reveal how they prioritise content and penalise them for profiting off harmful engagement. Without this, platforms will continue to exploit user behaviour unchecked.
We need better online spaces ones designed with safety, inclusion, and transparency at their core. If a platform isn’t prioritising user well-being over profit, it doesn’t deserve our time, attention, or data.
Laws that regulate misinformation, AI, and platform accountability are no longer optional, they’re essential. This includes stronger measures to protect children and teens from being lured into platforms that profit from their emotional and mental distress.
Alternatives like Fediverse and blockchain-based platforms could give users true control over content and moderation without relying on algorithms that amplify outrage. These solutions won’t fix everything, but they’re a start toward dismantling the centralised systems driving this chaos.
Comments