“We did not, and could not, remove content,” wrote Lori Robertson, the managing editor of FactCheck.org, which has partnered with Meta since 2016, in a blog post. “Any decisions to do that were Meta’s.”

"Hey boss, Mr. Degregorio over on 3rd street decided to not pay his protection money this month."

"What do you mean Mr. Degregorio had his legs broken and shop burned down? I certainly had nothing to do with that. It was the boss's decision!"

saying they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked.

“I don’t believe we were doing anything, in any form, with bias,”

Even if they are 100% honest, they are saying that they did not know they are biased and that they should not be trusted and need to be double-checked by Meta.

In the best of cases they are incompetent and should not be trusted so why would anyone pay them?

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, blamed the company’s fact-checking partners for some of Facebook’s moderation issues, saying in a video that “fact-checkers have been too politically biased” and have “destroyed more trust than they created.”

Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta have taken issue with that characterization, saying they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked

Classic. This is exactly what they did with every fact check they issued. They fact check something that wasn't even said.

Zuck: "Fact checkers have been too biased, which destroyed trust."

Fact checkers: "False. We didn't decide which content got removed."

I honestly can't tell if that title is satire or not.