The New York Times faced widespread mockery on Tuesday for a headline concerning Meta's fact-checkers verifying claims about their own work. Meta recently declared it would discontinue its contentious fact-checking procedures and ease speech restrictions across its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, to "reinstate free expression." The company acknowledged that its existing content moderation had "gone overboard." However, former third-party fact-checking collaborators contested accusations of bias and censorship in their efforts. PolitiFact's Aaron Sharockman criticized the decision, suggesting Meta should examine its own role in censorship. The New York Times' subsequent article on the reaction from fact-checking organizations carried the headline, "Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False." The article stated that these groups denied any involvement in Meta's content decisions based on their fact-checks. Numerous X platform users ridiculed the headline, with some calling it self-defeating and others questioning the state of modern media. Critics included Reason senior editor Robby Soave, civil liberties attorney Laura Powell, Analytics Miami founder Ana Bozovic, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo, The Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Z. Hemingway, and political columnist Moshe Hill. Even a meteorologist and data scientist, John Basham, jokingly compared the headline to satire. Meta's decision follows previous controversies, including a mistaken censorship of an iconic Trump assassination attempt photo and allegations of election interference. This shift in policy underscores the ongoing debate about the role and impact of fact-checking in the digital age.