Meta's decision to revamp its fact-checking program has drawn sharp criticism from Lead Stories, a prominent fact-checking organization used by the platform. Lead Stories expressed surprise and disappointment at the announcement, learning about it through media reports rather than direct communication from Meta. The organization, which employs several former CNN journalists, questioned Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's claim of political bias in fact-checking, emphasizing their adherence to the International Fact-Checking Network's (IFCN) Code of Principles, which mandates non-partisanship and fairness. Lead Stories also criticized Meta's proposed shift towards a Community Notes-style system, arguing that such systems are often slow, inaccurate, and lack transparency regarding contributors' biases and funding.

Zuckerberg defended the decision, citing concerns about the impact of misinformation on democracy and asserting that fact-checkers have eroded trust, particularly in the US. He argued that the current content moderation practices have "gone too far" and expressed a commitment to restoring free expression across Meta's platforms. Lead Stories countered by highlighting the IFCN's transparency requirements for fact-checkers, contrasting them with the anonymity of Community Notes contributors. The organization maintained that fact-checking is crucial for informed decision-making and is an integral part of free speech.

Lead Stories editor Maarten Schenk reaffirmed the organization's commitment to fact-checking despite the loss of Meta's support. Former CNN journalist and Lead Stories contributor Alan Duke confirmed that the organization will continue its work, albeit with reduced output, focusing on its global operations in eight languages other than English. The announcement sparked strong reactions on social media, with some conservatives celebrating the change while others criticized Lead Stories. The executive director of Politifact, another fact-checking organization used by Facebook, also condemned Zuckerberg's decision, arguing that it was a move towards censorship and that Meta, not fact-checkers, held the power to remove or penalize content.