All Quiet on the Meta Front

It’s been more than a month since Meta quietly rolled back its fact-checking policies, and since news broke about a sitting president launching a cryptocurrency. Yet, instead of sustained scrutiny, the public conversation has largely faded. The silence is deafening—what’s happening behind the scenes that we can’t see? Who is pulling the strings, and should we be worried?

Meta’s decision to scale back fact-checking should have ignited a firestorm of concern. Instead, the response has been muted. Experts warn that this shift is more than just a change in user experience—it’s a political maneuver with far-reaching consequences.

“Meta’s fact-checking rollback isn’t just user preferences anymore, it’s an open concession to political pressure. The removal of these safeguards shows a willingness to align with power rather than truth, and the implications for democracy are simply overwhelming,” says George Kailas, CEO at Prospero.Ai.

By limiting fact-checking, Meta has opened the floodgates for unchecked misinformation at a critical time. Political narratives can now spread with fewer barriers, fueling an environment where truth is optional and influence is everything. The question is: Who benefits? And more importantly, who ensures that the public remains unaware of these shifts?

This same lack of scrutiny is evident in the recent presidential crypto controversy. When a sitting president’s name is used to back a financial asset, ethical questions should take center stage. But rather than an outcry, we’ve seen mass participation.

“The most troubling part? People aren’t asking questions anymore. Instead of questioning the ethics of a president launching a coin, they’re buying in. The focus has shifted from accountability to personal profit, and that should concern everyone,” Kailas states.

This shift in priorities isn’t accidental. It’s part of a larger trend where power and wealth become increasingly intertwined, while public accountability fades into the background. We’ve moved from a time when presidents placed their assets in blind trusts to an era where financial entanglements are not just tolerated but embraced.

“Both political parties have paved an accelerating path towards wealth concentration. We’ve moved from presidents placing their assets in blind trusts to openly profiting from their name through meme coins. The idea of ‘buying a security’ in a president should have sparked outrage, but instead, it’s become a direct source of enrichment without consequences,” says Kailas.

This isn’t just about a single policy change at Meta or a single financial product. It’s about a broader shift in how political and financial power operate in today’s world. The mechanisms designed to hold leaders accountable are eroding, while the ability to consolidate wealth and influence has never been stronger.

So, why has the conversation gone silent? The answer is both simple and unsettling: Those who control the narrative don’t want people asking questions. The rollback of fact-checking, the normalization of political figures monetizing their influence, and the increasing alignment of technology giants with political power all contribute to an environment where the public is discouraged from questioning authority.

If we don’t push back, the consequences will be profound. Democracy depends on an informed public, yet we’re being conditioned to accept information without verification. The lines between politics, finance, and influence are blurring to the point where they may soon be indistinguishable.

It’s been a month of silence—but that silence is not accidental. The real question now is: Will people start paying attention before it’s too late?