Meta’s choice to end its information verification program in the United States has raised concerns among media outlets globally about the future of fact-checking in the midst of rampant spread of fake news.
Expansion increase
Fact-checking, or information verification, emerged in the early 2000s in the United States as a response to the internet and media organizations seeking to verify statements against reality. One notable example is the PolitiFact website, launched in 2007 and honored with the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, which adopts a journalistic approach to fact-checking.
The approach rapidly gained global popularity, with applications such as live TV fact-checking and online content labeled as accurate or not. Nonetheless, a significant shift occurred in 2016 following the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum.
Technology giants like Meta partnered with media outlets to combat the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories on social media, recognizing the financial potential in addressing this issue during challenging economic times.
Essential supplies for specific vehicles.
Ten organizations are impacted by Meta’s decision, which currently only impacts the United States. Some rely heavily on the tech giant, like Check Your Fact, while others, such as PolitiFact, appear less affected, with just over 5% of their revenue coming from this partnership.
AFP collaborates with Facebook’s fact-checking program in 26 different languages, with Facebook compensating approximately 80 organizations globally for their verification services across its platforms, including Whatsapp and Instagram. The agency’s management mentioned that they are currently assessing the situation.
The situation in Africa is particularly sensitive, with some economic models relying heavily on Facebook for support according to Laurent Bigot from the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). If Meta stops funding in Africa, crucial verification work may not be carried out, leading to the harmful effects of disinformation in these countries.
Purpose of criticism –
Meta President Mark Zuckerberg argued that fact-checkers are now politically controlled, which undermines trust, particularly in the United States. He mentioned that Meta aims to reinstate freedom of speech on its platforms.
The owner of X (formerly Twitter) and a close associate of the incoming US president, Elon Musk, has been criticizing fact-checking programs along with several Republican politicians for allegedly censoring conservative voices.
Angie Holan, the head of IFCN, stated that the fact-checking process in journalism does not involve censoring or removing publications. Instead, fact-checkers provide additional information and context to contentious statements based on transparent and non-partisan principles.
During election seasons, there is often increased pressure and threats directed towards fact-checking teams online, as seen in India, South Korea, and Croatia in 2024. Reporters Without Borders organization raised concerns about an “anti-journalistic bias” with Meta’s new policy.
Is fact-checking in a hopeless situation?
María Ressa, a Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, cautioned that Facebook could enable the spread of misinformation, anger, fear, and hatred among its users, ultimately resulting in a society devoid of truth.
Bigot, a communication expert at the University of Tours, stated that Meta’s announcement puts an end to a strange situation. He believes that platforms like Meta are significant sources of disinformation and are attempting to improve their reputation through such initiatives.
Libération, a French newspaper, ended its partnership with Meta in 2021. Cédric Mathiot, in charge of the Checknews section, mentioned that while such agreements can provide economic benefits, they can also help revive fact-checking efforts.
“Without Meta, this could lead to fact-checking becoming more ambitious, with increased thoroughness and a wider range of topics,” emphasized.