A few weeks ago, Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta ended their third-party fact-checking system in favor of “Community Notes” driven by the user. This change of approach, which followed a similar decision by Elon Musk’s X (previously Twitter), has raised questions about whether it will now become even harder to distinguish fact from fiction on social media.
In sub-Saharan Africa, where Meta’s platforms dominate news sharing and public debate, this action is likely to have particularly adverse effects. In this article, we explore three potential consequences of Meta’s decision: damage to local journalism, a rise in disinformation, and the emboldening of Chinese and Russian propaganda.
In the wake of World Press Freedom Day when journalists around the world reflected on the importance of independent and credible journalism in sustaining democratic life against a backdrop of twenty years of rising authoritarianism, these issues are more important than ever.
Undermining local journalism and fuelling disinformation
In today’s connected world, access to credible local news is vital to an informed public and the survival of democracy. This demand is more evident in sub-Saharan Africa, where local journalism has become an indispensable tool for accountability and informed public opinion. Yet Meta’s decision threatens to hurt the noble objectives of local journalism and undermine democracy.
Local journalism in sub-Saharan Africa is important to generate accurate and context-driven reporting. International partners interested in deepening democracy over the years have relied on local journalists to provide culturally nuanced reporting that cannot be produced by journalists based in foreign capitals. Community radio stations in many parts of Africa, for example, have helped to bring local problems to the fore, transmit content in indigenous languages, and promote debate about health, education, and politics. These outlets also help to push leaders to deliver and hold them to account through investigative reporting and fact-checking.
Against this backdrop, the decision by Meta to stop its fact-checking systems is alarming for two reasons. First, it will see less money invested in local fact-checking groups, denying them essential resources that in some cases helped to sustain local journalism and media organization.
In the past, for example, Meta’s collaboration with third-party fact-checking organizations in Africa helped to constrain the rise and spread of misleading information while spreading skills and new ways of working. Its partnership with Africa Check, the first African independent fact-checking site, is one notable example of its footprint on the continent. The partnership has helped verify public-facing claims so users can receive authentic and factual information.
This alliance also helped to promote intelligent public debate. Meta also facilitated an “ideathon” in Addis Ababa held by Africa Check and Inform Africa in December 2024. The event gathered researchers and pioneers to work on how to counter disinformation. Such commitments helped media organizations on the continent to adapt local models for fact-checking and debunking propaganda.
Meta funding also helped develop media literacy through journalism training and capacity building in sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, supporting journalism education programmes that inform journalists and citizens about how to identify and respond to fake news had an appreciable impact on the ability of African medias to respond to the challenges presented by social media.
The removal of so much of this funding will create a vacuum that will leave local African media and journalism even more isolated and financially challenged than in the past.
Second, Meta’s change of heart on fact-checking risks exposing local journalists and information arenas to an unchecked flow of disinformation, undermining their ability to communicate accurate news to their communities due to the absence of efforts to debunk fake news and build media literacy.
The recent elections held in Ghana and Nigeria, for example, saw a sharp rise of misinformation — but there were also serious efforts to constrain it. These efforts were not fully succesful, but they did enable those who wanted to find the truth to easily locate it, and so dampened the intensity of misleading electoral content and messaging.
Following Meta’s decision, this situation is likely to become even more challenging, which is particularly problematic given the role that a number of foreign states have started to play in fuelling disinformation.
The global flow of disinformation
The spread of disinformation in sub-Saharan Africa is increasingly shaped by external actors. Both China and Russia have used media as a tool of soft power, embedding strategic narratives that serve their geopolitical interests.
Their selective engagement in the region’s information space—particularly in countries such as Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Chad—reflects a calculated effort to influence public opinion and weaken Western influence.
China has channelled significant resources into African media through platforms like CGTN Africa and partnerships with regional broadcasters. These efforts promote a narrative of mutual cooperation and non-interference, while deflecting attention from China’s domestic authoritarianism and rights abuses.
Russia, meanwhile, has adopted a different approach, utilising both state media (RT and Sputnik) and covert digital operations to spread disinformation, often appealing to anti-colonial sentiment and presenting itself as a counterweight to Western powers.
There is nothing new about the use of propaganda in international relations, of course, and this is something Western states have done for many years. What we are now seeing, however, is unprecedented levels of disinformation and efforts to foster instability rather than simply to promote the image of one European power or another.
As documented by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, for example, Russian-linked networks have interfered in electoral processes across the continent, aiming to erode trust in democratic institutions. Such influence campaigns – often coordinated through social media, local influencers, and state-linked outlets like Sputnik – have also been deployed to intentionally undermine democratic actors and rally support for military regimes.
The decision by Meta to scale back its monitoring of false narratives has created new vulnerabilities in the face of this onslaught. In countries with fragile or underfunded media sectors, there are few credible platforms capable of countering foreign disinformation. As a result, Chinese and Russian narratives face less resistance within the information ecosystem, particularly on platforms like Facebook and TikTok. In Nigeria, for example, recent protests over hunger and governance have featured visible displays of pro-Russian sentiment, amplified through digital media and local languages.
These dynamics carry broader implications. Disinformation undermines democratic accountability by distorting public debate and fostering support for authoritarian governance. Some foreign media actors – though of course by no means all – are not merely reporting the news. Rather, they are reshaping it to align with strategic interests, often at the expense of local perspectives and cultural autonomy.
More broadly, the erosion of regional journalism exacerbates existing informational inequalities. Wealthier countries may have the resources to adapt to shifts in global media, but rural and low-income communities are more exposed to unverified claims and less equipped to respond. The loss of robust local journalism leaves a vacuum that external actors are increasingly able to fill. A recent report by the United States Institute of Peace warns of the long-term effects of this trend with regards to China.
There are, however, avenues for resistance.
In South Africa, the Competition Commission has taken steps to hold global tech firms accountable, demanding contributions to a public-interest media fund. While such measures are limited in scope, they demonstrate that governments can challenge the current trajectory and seek to reinforce the media sector’s role in safeguarding democracy. Other African states may find in this example a blueprint for navigating the complex intersection of technology, sovereignty, and democratic resilience.
Haruna Mohammed Salisu is a journalist and graduate student at the Media School, Indiana University, USA. He founded WikkiTimes, an investigative news outlet dedicated to reporting in the news desert areas of northern Nigeria. He can be reached here.
Idris Mohammed, a Ph.D student at College of Communication and Information Science, University of Alabama, United States. He can be reached here.
