The Beginning of the End for Weaponized Fact-Checking?

The Rise and Fall of a Censorship Powerhouse

Logically, once hailed as Britain’s largest fact-checking organization, has officially gone out of business. Launched in 2017 by Cambridge graduate Lyric Jain, the company was built on the premise of using artificial intelligence and human analysts to verify information online. In reality, it quickly evolved into a digital enforcer – flagging, silencing, and sidelining views that often ran counter to prevailing narratives on topics ranging from COVID-19 to politics.

The company’s demise came swiftly after losing contracts with two of its biggest clients: Meta (Facebook’s parent company) and TikTok. Without these partnerships, Logically was no longer financially sustainable. On July 7, 2025, its assets were quietly sold off in a pre-packaged administration deal to a little-known firm called Kreatur Ltd., led by a former Logically investor.

The Facebook Debacle

Logically’s problems started years earlier with Facebook. Initially embraced as a key player in the social media giant’s fact-checking efforts, Logically became one of several groups tasked with labeling and suppressing so-called misinformation. But critics quickly pointed out the obvious—these groups weren’t checking facts; they were policing opinions. Whether it was questioning lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or election procedures, any narrative that strayed from the party line was stamped as “false.”

By 2025, even Mark Zuckerberg had enough. In a public video statement, he admitted that fact-checkers had become “too politically biased” and were doing “more harm than good.” Meta then made a complete U-turn, abandoning its partnership with Logically and other outside organizations. The company adopted a community-based fact-checking model, similar to Elon Musk’s approach at X (formerly Twitter), signaling a major retreat from years of heavy-handed moderation.

Zuckerberg’s message was blunt: “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

A Global Pattern of Overreach

Logically’s operations weren’t limited to the UK or the U.S. The company took on government-backed fact-checking work in India, partnering with the Karnataka state government. But the Editors Guild of India and press freedom advocates accused Logically of enabling state censorship under the guise of fighting misinformation. Instead of protecting the truth, it was seen as helping the government suppress dissenting media.

Their collaboration with the UK government’s Counter-Disinformation Unit during the COVID-19 pandemic also raised red flags. The unit was widely criticized for using fact-checkers to delegitimize critics of lockdowns and public health mandates, casting legitimate debate as “dangerous disinformation.”

Follow the Money: NewsGuard’s Parallel Story

Logically’s fall isn’t unique. NewsGuard, another prominent fact-checking operation, has been accused of similar behavior—especially its habit of disproportionately targeting conservative voices. Critics argue it functions more as a gatekeeper for left-wing orthodoxy than a neutral arbiter of truth.

NewsGuard has raked in millions from government sources, including the State Department, the EU, and even U.S. Cyber Command. But backlash is building. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation banning state agencies from using NewsGuard or similar services. And Microsoft has already stopped using NewsGuard ratings in its Edge browser.

The problem is clear: Fact-checking has strayed far from its original purpose. Instead of protecting users from obvious hoaxes, it’s been used to control what people are allowed to think, read, and share.

A System Designed to Silence

From the beginning, fact-checking organizations were framed as impartial defenders of truth. But in practice, they’ve been weaponized by tech platforms and governments to censor inconvenient opinions—especially those critical of public policy or progressive politics. The tools of digital moderation were never just about stopping false claims. They were about enforcing ideological conformity.

Under the banner of “misinformation,” fact-checkers have flagged satire, suppressed expert disagreement, and throttled user engagement. Ordinary people were labeled as dangerous simply for questioning the consensus.

Zuckerberg acknowledged this tradeoff, stating that “millions” of users had their content mistakenly removed or downgraded. The sheer scale of the censorship wasn’t a bug—it was the system working exactly as designed.

A Political Turning Point

The reelection of Donald Trump in 2024 marked a major shift. His administration has been openly hostile to these fact-checking initiatives, viewing them as tools of state-sponsored censorship. Trump himself declared that Meta had “come a long way” after it announced its new free-speech-friendly policies, including eliminating the third-party fact-checking system altogether.

Meta is even relocating its trust and safety teams out of California, moving them to Texas and other red states in an attempt to rebuild public trust and signal its new direction.

The End of an Era

Logically’s bankruptcy isn’t just the fall of one company – it’s a symbol of a broader collapse in the credibility of fact-checking as an institution. For years, these organizations have claimed to stand for truth, while actively suppressing it in the name of politics and power.

As users, governments, and platforms turn away from centralized content control, the tide may finally be shifting. Fact-checkers once styled themselves as the last line of defense against misinformation. Increasingly, they are being remembered as the first line of censorship.

NP Editor: Many of us have been victims of censorship in this manner. Google still censors this publication and other conservative publications on a regular basis, with pages being demonetized a dozen times per month.

The post The Beginning of the End for Weaponized Fact-Checking? appeared first on The Punching Bag Post.