Zuckerberg's Funky Romanian Consent Factory
Mark Zuckerberg publicly ended his 'politically biased' fact-checking program five months ago. So why is Romania's consent factory working overtime?
In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg publicly admitted what critics of the fact-checking industry had long argued: “The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created”. Declaring the end of the program, he announced a shift toward a new system: “Over the next couple of months, we’re gonna phase in a more comprehensive community notes system”.
Zuckerberg’s confession was blunt. What had started as a push for inclusivity had “gone too far”, becoming a tool to “shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas”. The system, he said, made “too many mistakes and too much censorship”. This message came as a relief to many in Romania.
The previous month, Romania's elections were annulled in circumstances the Venice Commission would describe in February 2025 as lacking sufficient evidence. The Economist simultaneously downgraded the country to “hybrid regime status” in its Democracy Index 2024—hardly the opinion of populist media. Tensions around the notion of truth and media propaganda were very high, with famous journalists being censored for calling out the judicial coup.
In Romania, the fact-checking landscape is dominated by two entities: Factual.ro, run by the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Funky Citizens, and AFP Verificat, the local arm of Agence France-Presse’s fact-checking operation. Contacted to comment on the Meta contract and their financial structure, Funky Citizens’ director, Elena Calistru, repeatedly emphasized their “total independence on the editorial side”. Asked about the transition to Meta’s new model, Calistru explained to me that their “contract is for 2025. No discussions about the community notes”. Regardless of Meta’s public disavowal of its own program, Romanian partners appear to be continuing the same operations five months after Zuckerberg’s statement—under the very framework already deemed discredited by the company that funds it.
In the tense context of the Romanian election, we can only wonder: is Meta merely letting its contracts run out, or is there tacit complicity in maintaining these operations within certain jurisdictions? Are external pressures—perhaps from EU institutions or domestic actors—encouraging the continuation of a narrative enforcement model that has been officially abandoned elsewhere?
What’s clear is that, in the critical months before and after Romania’s annulled elections, until the new election in May, the fact-checking institutions did not act as a corrective force. Quite the opposite: they aligned themselves with the mainstream media’s high-intensity mobilization effort, repeating or reinforcing the very narratives they should have scrutinized. In doing so, they helped to sustain a state of collective anxiety, of fear, amplified by every major outlet in Romania.
Let’s dive into the biggest “pieces of misinformation”—you can call them lies, if you’re avoiding newspeak—that shaped the Romanian presidential campaign.
The Dogs That Didn't Bark:
Seven False Narratives Left Unchecked
For months, Romanian media repeated that the leading sovereigntist candidates—George Simion and Calin Georgescu—were “pro-Russian”, “Russian assets”, “anti-EU”, “anti-NATO”, and even, at some point, “antisemitic”. They claimed AUR (Alliance for the Unity of Romanians) was “hand in hand with the PSD (Social Democratic Party)” in some grand conspiracy, and even recently let spread claims about Simion's alleged Roma origins. These narratives shaped public discourse and likely influenced both the court's decision to cancel the election in December and ban Georgescu from runing, but also voter turnout and ballots cast. Yet a closer look reveals most of these narratives were demonstrably false—and the fact-checkers were nowhere to be found.
The Russian Asset Narrative
Both candidates addressed their stance on Russia in several instances. While Georgescu underlined the necessity of diplomacy, including with Russia, Simion self-declared as russophobic and explained that, unfortunately, until Putin goes away, there isn't much to hope about getting Russia to comply with the West’s request, nor be beaten militarily.
The Russian asset narrative regarding Simion circulated for months before the first round of 2024 elections, underlying that he was banned to travel to Ukraine and Moldova. Only in the campaign's final weeks did Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu acknowledge the real reason for Simion's Ukraine ban: his activism for Romania's discriminated minority there, confirmed by released Ukrainian documents.
Regarding Simion’s ban on entering Moldova, the Russian asset accusation was repeated by former minister Anatol Șalaru, but a Moldovan court declined to judge the defamation case—a decision appearing highly political in a country that The Economist characterizes as a "flawed democracy". Notably, Simion's Moldova ban originated from Vladimir Voronin's pro-Russian government in 2009, contradicting the Russian asset narrative. Interestingly, even Maia Sandu, the Macron-friendly new Moldovan president who backed Simion's opponent, didn't reveal any classified information either that would lead to actually incriminating Simion’s alleged activities and links to Russian intelligence.
The Anti-EU vs. Pro-EU tantrum
This represents perhaps the most toxic disinformation circulated in a country where 87.5% support EU membership. Both sovereigntist candidates clearly positioned themselves against EU exit. Simion actively promotes "Make Europe Great Again"—ideologically linked to Trump-inspired populism but questioning what kind of EU we want, not advocating departure.
Civil society took part in “pro-EU” protests during both campaigns. Imagine five friends—all of them pro-EU—and suddenly one throws a tantrum, hysterically crying, “No, I want to stay in the EU!”
The Anti-NATO Claims
The anti-NATO narrative is ridiculous again, even if Georgescu declared that the anti-missile system matters less than having good diplomacy and peaceful relations with the neighbors. Simion, on his side, clearly said he wanted as many NATO troops as possible because they guarantee the security and territorial integrity of Romania, although he clearly positioned against a non-defensive NATO (a matter that raises concerns about NATO meddling outside its defense commitment and creating potentially dramatic backfires).
Antisemitism too, of course
Antisemitism accusations have been used against the candidates, whose efforts to build strong relations with Israel, contact with the Diaspora ministry in charge of fighting antisemitism, should generally dismiss the move. Unless you want to enter into complex debates rooted in the origin of Zionism—but then, you can't just label somebody as antisemitic without having a clear and complex conversation with that person, and without acknowledging all the tense debates that go through the Jewish communities and the many scholars who discussed both Judaism, Zionism, antisemitism, anti-Zionism and the Diaspora identity.
The PSD Collusion Theory
The collusion with the PSD is again a major fake news used for propaganda purposes during the 2024 campaign. It was based on the idea that AUR and PSD would have a clear agreement and that an almighty PSD was able to control a part of their electorate to vote for Simion, AUR’s candidate. The theory emerged from speculation between then-AUR member Becali and PSD member Hrebenciuc, who fantasized about making both Simion and Ciolacu first-round finalists. Reality dismissed this narrative when Georgescu and Lasconi led the first round.
The Roma Origin Smear
And finally, the alleged Roma origin narrative—insidious, racist, promoted even by some very famous public figures who introduce themselves as intellectuals, sign open letters as intellectuals—has certainly made its share of damage with the educated urban voters where class disdain often overlaps with a racism that you'll rarely see among the Romanian popular classes. If you’re still wondering how much fact-checking and blame this smear received—the answer is: close to none.
Now, if a state of near collective psychosis spreads in a part of society, and you're a fact checker, we should assume you'd try to bring people back to reason and help elevate the debate. These unchecked narratives suggest more than editorial inconsistency—they point toward systematic bias.
To understand why fact-checkers systematically ignored obvious misinformation while aggressively targeting marginal claims, we must follow the money.
The Pay-per-fact-check business
Funky Citizens funding data reveals connections to US government sources (State Department and the famous foundations), European Union money, European Governments money and crucially—Meta money. But it remains pretty difficult to get a detailed breakdown about the rolling programs. Despite managing millions in funding, Ms Calistru explains not having a separate accounting for the fact-checking operation, and can only provide gross approximations on the financing of the program. Moreover, there’s a kicker: “The Meta program […] is invoiced depending on the number of published fact-checks. Indeed, a full figure is not available for that one because it is subject to their contract, which is confidential per their request”.
Undisclosed contract and money linked to the number of fact-checks published? Even if the request comes from Meta, it’s a disturbing situation for Funky Citizens, an NGO known to push for transparency and accountability of institutions. In any case, the very structure of the Meta contract and its pay-per-fact-check system looks like an invitation to fact-checking inflation.
One can only assume that this is how people who share jokes or some speculative extrapolation on Facebook get their posts canceled, as is the case for the conservative commentator Andrei Murgescu, or for the sovereigntist Adrian Tirca, guilty of wrongspeak in both cases here under:
Or Victor Roncea, owner of a leading "anti-globalist" website, fact-checked while accurately sharing a photographer's account about how the interim president's PR used telephoto that made the president appear directly behind Trump when he was actually 6 meters away on a different row during the Pope's funeral.
Funky transparency
The amount of the Facebook money raises serious questions. Who knows how much Funky Citizens receive for this inflation of thought control? I tried to understand or deduce it from their accountancy, but it’s quite mixed up by design. Or, put in Ms. Calistru's terms:
“We don't have separate accounting for the fact-checking operation so no separate budget is made for Factual.ro. This is the whole idea and the design of the fact-checking operation that had 0 own resources until 3-4 years ago. This is how we work for the entire organization, sharing resources, both financial and human (i.e there is no separate admin or financial or communication person for Fact-checking, these are the same colleagues). This is how we maintain our independence and don't end up needing to “chase” funding or do compromises because one team might be un-covered by a project at a certain time”.
Looking at the accountancy balance sheet, this all shows a pretty good business — revenues multiplied by 6 in the last 6 years, with a 23% average surplus, and somewhere between 2.3M and 3.7M lei in bank end of year for the last three years. A success that would only deserve praises if we could demonstrate it’s not about biased and politically weaponized work.
As the tech industry saying goes: “if you're not paying, you are the product”. We don't pay for fact-checking, but somebody else pays for it, and while words like “transparency”, “media literacy” and “fight against misinformation” are promoted, there are good reasons to believe that our silence and our conformity are the real product delivered here.
From the data published on Factual’s website—the fact-checking branch of Funky Citizens—we can identify up to about 407K€ in financing, but without any mention about the total budget and the Meta share. Without considering Meta, the rest of the financing is about 39% European Commission & Programs, 22% European governments, 26% US Foreign policy (Department of State and affiliated entities, foundations), 4% Soros Open Society Foundation, 2% Google, and roughly 6% from donations.
In email correspondence, Calistru provided different figures: 35% from Meta, 35% from the European Commission's BROD1 program, 10% from the Botnar Foundation (unlisted on their fact-checker website), and 20% from donations and internal resources. She estimated a 1 million lei (€200,000) fact-checking budget. These figures contradict their published data. If BROD represented €120,000 over 2.5 years, total revenues would be approximately €350,000—yet their website lists €407,000 in identified funding alone, before considering Meta's contribution. Things don’t really add up.
But for sure, the displayed government funding sources from the European Commission, US Foreign Policy actors, and Big Tech players could raise editorial questions about cross-allegiance to the military-industrial complex, European Union executive, Facebook, and maybe to similarly-funded local NGOs.
I searched for criticism or contradictory editorial content showing dissonance from backers' and friendly interests—I found none (I promise to keep looking though, notably while working on the other leading fact checker, AFP Verificat).
How Much Fact Can Fact-Checkers Check If Fact-Checkers Can't Check Facts?
Digging into the library of fact-checks performed by factual.ro is like descending into an alternative reality in a way.
One fact-check blatantly lies about an AUR lobbying contract. Their fact-check affirms that a payment has been done as explained in a May 2022 document to a lobbying firm in the USA, but it points to a May 2025 document. It’s never great to have a typo that helps sustain a lie, especially when you’re a fact checker… The respective document falls under the mandatory foreign agent US law pre-registration, but doesn't prove any payment has been made—a fact perfectly debunked by the Romanian journalist Patrick André de Hillerin here in a Facebook post.
They fact-checked another presidential candidate, Crin Antonescu, who had declared that Romania has little troops. Their own fact-check actually shows that in terms of percentage, it’s among the lowest in the region. And it doesn’t even consider the dynamics and investment that left Romania far behind Poland— a rising military power— in that matter. It almost feels like the idea of demoting the spirit of the population regarding the country’s military readiness was the problem—in a context were some candidates were strongly aligned to Macron’s potentially excalating intentions in Ukraine, while other were campaigning on peace and on staying away from the neighboring armed conflict.
But the most interesting fact-checks may again be the ones that never happened.
When the smear comes from the censor
In a pressHub interview that had significant reach among the NGO bubble, researcher Adina Marincea made twisted antisemitism accusations:
“Călin Georgescu uses such coded language with antisemitic connotations when he speaks about 'the satanist neo-Marxists from Davos', associated, of course, with Soros, or when he accused Soros and Kissinger in 2022 of dividing the world between themselves, pursuing its domination. So it is coded antisemitism, which manifests itself, even though only a few thousand Jews still live in Romania, for this reason we can speak of 'antisemitism without Jews'. Coded words like 'globalists', 'Sorosists', 'neo-Marxists', 'neo-Bolsheviks', 'New World Order' often come with antisemitic implications, they rekindle the antisemitic imagination and activate latent prejudices, centuries old”.
This wasn't addressed by any fact checker, and it should, especially since Ms. Marincea is a researcher at the Elie Wiesel Institute, and should abide by the definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Nowhere is “antisemitism without Jews” considered canon. This statement avoided by the friendly fact-checkers have been published in Presshub, a news project “powered by Freedom House”, whose funding is 90% USAID. Is friendly fire not tolerated in the fact-check business?
Marincea’s role as a DSA “trusted flagger” for the “Elie Wiesel” National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania compounds these concerns. This status grants her priority access to content removal mechanisms across digital platforms. If antisemitism requires no actual antisemites—as her “antisemitism without Jews” theory suggests—then her flagging authority becomes a tool for discretionary political censorship. This raises a crucial question: do Romania's other Trusted Flaggers operate under similarly discretionary interpretive frameworks?
It's worth noting that Ms Marincea isn't the only person at the Wiesel Institute who seems to weaponize their authority.
The Wiesel Institute Communiqué
In a communiqué on November 25th, the Elie Wiesel Institute declared that “The far right in Romania isn't just a vulnerability, it's now a reality! It represents over 35% of the electorate's choices. The far right means Holocaust denial, antisemitism, racism, denial of rights and freedoms for any minority, sovereigntism, external pro-Russian orientation, anti-Europe and anti-NATO”.
There may be as many as ten unfounded claims in this single statement, depending on how one counts. The toxic effect of such rhetoric on the actual fight against antisemitism is comparable to that of labeling as “anti-EU” people who didn’t reject the EU. If sovereigntism is equated with antisemitism, does that mean abandoning national sovereignty—the very foundation of Romania’s constitutional democracy—is now a cure for antisemitism? Weaponizing Holocaust memory to undermine democratic self-determination risks fueling the very sentiments the Institute is meant to oppose. Yet this narrative did not draw the attention of any fact-checker.
When Nicușor Dan “speaks openly”
One other, funnier, and tiny example of incoherent fact-checking activity: Nicușor Dan, the candidate embraced by the Romanian “Civil Society” in its “We’re Pro-EU” tantrum. Two days after being voted, a journalist asked him about the fight he just fought, saying “Now that the elections have passed, we can speak openly”. The implication is that before being voted, it wasn't possible to speak honestly and that lying by omission and spreading lies was deemed acceptable both for the journalists and for the candidate. In a candid way, Mr. Dan answers that “George Simion would not have taken Romania out of the European Union. But what would he have done there? He would have blocked support for Moldova. He would have blocked support for Ukraine. [...] He would have blocked this rearmament program of the European Union against Russian aggression from the East”.
As I mentioned earlier, the allegation of wanting to exit the EU has been widely spread and never fact-checked. Maybe, if the fact-checkers believed this as Mr. Simion's plan, a fact-check on the current president's speech would have been an act of coherence. Funnily, pointing to this Nicusor Dan’s excerpt on X got my account suspended within minutes. (It’s still suspended as I write… So much for Mr Musk’s “free speech absolutism” in Romania... )
It’s worth noting that a few leaders of Funky Citizens—executive and editorial staff as well—did participate in the pro-EU tantrum.
Dugin, the infiltrated media, and another friendly fire that never was…
Last but not least, as I described in my other article, The Misery of the Romanian Legacy Media, virtually all of legacy media faceplanted spreading an alarmist narrative about Alexander Dugin allegedly claiming Romania as part of Russia, days before December 2024's election annulment.
The source was an X account managed by a Brazilian "troll" with no proven connection to the actual Dugin. Yet everyone fell for it, used it, spread it—valuable propaganda that fueled irrational fears. Only one media outlet published a correction. No fact-checker addressed this major piece of disinformation.
Six months later, during the second presidential campaign, mainstream media promoted content from another unverified X account posing as Dugin (@AGDugin), while the previous one (@Agdchan) had already been suspended.
The Algorithm Question
In this context of biased, selective fact-checking, Funky Citizens' participation in an Open Letter requesting expanded "expert" access to social media data raises questions—on February 12, 2025, Romanian NGOs led by Expert Forum urgently sought expanded access ahead of May 2025 presidential elections.
The timing reveals a devastating contrast: February 12, 2025 was the exact same day that Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Rupa Subramanya testified before the U.S. Congress about the "Censorship-Industrial Complex"—exposing how NGOs worldwide had been weaponized against free speech using government funding. While American journalists revealed how media and NGOs had become government propaganda machines, Romanian "censors" simultaneously demanded more power to potentially do exactly that.
Expert Forum signatories read like Romania's information warfare apparatus, many funded by the same USAID, NED, OCCRP, and State Department sources being exposed as censorship tools in Washington that very day.
Given Romania's eleven-year violation of EU Media Charter Article 22—requiring intelligence asset removal from newsrooms—significant risk exists that several signatories may even be acting under executive branch orders. When a country harbors an estimated 100-200 intelligence assets in domestic and international media, lines blur between "civil society", media, and state operations.
The letter's Orwellian language is revealing: while demanding "radical transparency in access to data", it mentions users only once—and then only as subjects, not beneficiaries. The "experts" wanted transparency about us, not for us. They sought to study "algorithmic influence on user experiences" including through "controlled experiments with algorithmic interventions"—technical language for mass manipulation?
The real transparency crisis isn't that experts lack data—it's that citizens have no idea how their information diet is being manipulated. The solution isn't giving more power to government-approved guardians who've demonstrated their bias. It's full algorithmic transparency for everyone—open-source algorithms that citizens can inspect, that experts from all political tendencies can review and explain.
You’re in the army now
Following Christopher Mott and Mike Benz's analysis, money flowing through USAID, NED, and State Department funding serves as institutional cover for military-industrial objectives.
I searched for fact-checks supporting peace over warfare, criticizing EU institutional overreach, questioning NATO expansion, or challenging ongoing treaty reforms voted in the EU parliament—unsuccessfully. When exposed to this situation, Ms Calistru responded:
“I feel like this statement (or accusation?) that there “is alignment with Western policy narratives” is, in my view, a very tricky one. We do not align with Western or Eastern narratives, but fact-check (with the limitations of our capacity) statements. If the Western narratives flood the Romanian media space and they also happen to be true, well… at the same time, you could always argue that we are aligned to the Western science narratives. We probably are, because they are mostly true (though, of course, when it comes to science, the wisest approach is probably the one with “when facts change, I change my mind”).”
The broader challenge is that the press should always act as a 4th estate. Unless we assume we are already at war, freedom of information is suspended and the media and their fact-checker extention just serve the purpose of state propaganda. But if we're still in democratic times, press should question official narratives and criticize power, enriching healthy democratic debates regardless of whether this resonates with supposedly Western or Eastern narratives. I wish I could get a different outcome from that first investigation, but as long as fact-check doesn’t act as a part of the 4th estate and defy power, it really appears to mean conformity-check—ensuring narrative supremacy aligned with the elite’s objectives and its allegiances to military-industrial interests and to Big Pharma.
I understand how people feel attacked when calling them out for dressing as grassroots social warriors and actually manufacturing consent for the military and the powerful. It would be better if such an argument could be dismissed from the start—in my understanding, a good rock anthem for the "civil society" should be Creedence's "Fortunate Son", not Status Quo's "In the Army Now".
More seriously, several questions remain unanswered: Why does Zuckerberg continue funding systems he publicly disavowed? Are these programs designed to manufacture consent for foreign policy objectives—conditioning Romanians for participation in the meat grinder or ensuring compliance with agendas that bypass democratic deliberation?
One thing is clear: no NGO can claim the mantle of civil society while consistently acting as a government proxy—be it national or foreign. This calls for a deeper inquiry: how much of Romania’s NGO sector is rooted in authentic, grassroots civic activism, and how much of it has become an extension of executive influence—shaping narratives, directing discourse, and filtering legitimacy?
Transparency
Some of the NGO work is undeniably useful. Funky Citizens has strongly advocated for public budget transparency. Another local NGO, Active Watch, actually proposed the removal of intelligence assets from newsrooms eleven years ago—a demand echoed in Article 22 of the EU Media Charter. But such contributions cannot launder credibility for systemic opacity and bias.
Therefore, this first investigation on the broader Romanian censorship architecture calls for three urgent measures:
Disclosure of Meta Contract Terms and Amounts—This could begin with a mutual agreement between Funky Citizens and Meta to waive the non-disclosure clause binding them—in the name of transparency;
Independent Audit of Fact-Checking Practices and Biases;
Legislative Clarification on NGO–Media–Intel Separation—Both civil society and the media must be protected from covert state capture.
Absent these steps, the line between civil society and state apparatus will continue to blur—until the very term “non-governmental” becomes meaningless.
In his article “Fact-Checking Takes Another Beating”, Matt Taibbi recalled how indispensable fact-checkers once were inside newsrooms: “Fact-checkers probably saved my career on at least a dozen occasions. When I was just starting to report on Wall Street, Rolling Stone often had to assign multiple people to go through every line of my articles to make sure I didn’t make a complete ass of myself”. They performed the unglamorous but vital work of verifying claims before publication.
Indeed, fact-checking could have served as a safeguard against factual error for writers. Instead, it has been conscripted as a public-facing tool of narrative enforcement—funded through opaque contracts, aligned with executive power, and increasingly intolerant of dissent.
If this system cannot be dramatically reformed—returning to its rightful role as an impartial safeguard meant to enrich journalism, not censor it—then it should be dismantled entirely, along with the broader censorship infrastructure it has come to legitimize.
Bulgarian-Romanian Observatory of Digital Media
funky
/ˈfʌŋki/
frightened, panicky, or cowardly