The unexpected news from the Meta technology giant about discontinuing its fact-checking program in the United States led to strong backlash from disinformation experts on Tuesday, who highlighted the potential increase in false narratives.
Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that the company will remove its external fact-checkers in the United States, a significant shift believed by analysts to be aimed at appeasing President Donald Trump.
Ross Burley, co-founder of the Center for Information Resilience, a non-profit organization, stated that this development is a significant obstacle for content moderation amid the rapid evolution of misinformation and harmful content.
Fact-checking and researching disinformation have been sensitive matters in a highly polarized political environment in the United States, as conservative supporters argue that there are constraints on free speech and censorship of right-wing material.
The Trump Republican Party and billionaire Elon Musk, who owns the old Twitter known as X, voiced similar grievances.
Protecting freedom of expression is crucial, but getting rid of fact-checking without a dependable alternative could lead to promoting harmful narratives, according to Burley. This approach appears to be more about political appeasement than a well-thought-out policy.
Zuckerberg suggested that Facebook and Instagram in the United States might implement “Community Notes, similar to X’s approach.”
Community Notes are a shared moderation feature enabling users to provide additional information to posts, although their efficacy in countering misinformation has been frequently challenged by researchers.
Michael Wagner from the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication stated that while people are careful about who they trust to fix a bathroom leak, Meta appears to trust anyone to stop misinformation on their platforms.
Asking people to voluntarily monitor untrue statements on Meta’s social media platforms is a failure to fulfill social obligations.
“A decision related to politics.”
Meta’s new strategy overlooks studies indicating that “Community Note users are largely driven by partisan motivations and have a tendency to target their political adversaries more frequently,” according to Alexios Mantzarlis, who heads the Cornell Tech Security, Trust, and Protection Initiative.
The decision is a financial loss for the external fact-checking journalists working in the United States.
The Meta program and external funding have been the main sources of income for fact-checkers globally, as per a survey conducted by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) in 2023 involving 137 organizations across numerous countries.
The choice will also negatively impact social media users who rely on precise and trustworthy information to guide their daily decisions and interactions, according to Angie Holan, IFCN director.
He expressed regret that the decision was made in reaction to the diplomatic influence of a new administration and its followers.
Aaron Sharockman, the head of the American PolitiFact fact-checking organization, does not believe that fact-checking is intended to limit freedom of speech.
He stated that American fact-checkers are responsible for adding speech and context to publications that journalists believe contain incorrect information. It is Meta’s duty to determine the sanctions that users will face.
“People can have different opinions about any article we publish due to freedom of expression,” Sharockman mentioned. He suggested that if Meta is concerned about implementing a censorship tool, they should examine themselves.
PolitiFact was among the initial collaborators with Facebook to introduce online fact-checking in the United States in 2016.
AFP is currently involved in the Facebook content verification program in 26 languages, paying approximately 80 organizations worldwide to conduct checks on its platform, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
Content labeled as “false” in the program will have limited visibility, and attempting to share it will prompt a pop-up article detailing its deceptive nature.
Mantzarlis stated that although the program was not flawless and the fact-checkers made mistakes in some instances, it is important to note that Zuckerberg’s choice to remove the fact-checkers was a political decision, not a public policy one.