Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently announced a major shift in the company’s approach to content moderation. In a move that mirrors decisions made by Elon Musk at Twitter (now X), Zuckerberg revealed that Meta will be ending its fact-checking program in the United States.
Instead, the tech giant plans to implement a community-driven model similar to X’s Community Notes. This move has caused ripples in the social media arena, raising eyebrows over the prospect of increased false news.
Meta’s decision is a stark departure from its previous stance on fact-checking. When the company launched its fact-checking program in 2016, it aimed to enable independent organizations to review content and give users more context about viral posts, especially those that might be hoaxes or misinformation.
Back then, Zuckerberg emphasized that Meta did not want to become the “arbiter of truth” and instead handed the responsibility over to third-party fact-checkers.
However, Zuckerberg admitted that this system had failed to work appropriately, especially when it came to the United States. In his statement, he noted the fact-checker’s own predispositions, making their judgment not even-handed. In turn, there was frustration and dissatisfaction among those users whose posting was marked as having a political tinge and mislabeled with the misleading.
Community Notes And Its Significance
Meta’s new system will be modeled on the Community Notes approach used by X. Instead of relying on professional fact-checkers, users will be able to flag misleading posts and offer additional context. Zuckerberg expects this method to be more effective, as it allows for a broader range of perspectives to weigh in on the accuracy of the post. The objective is to create a less biased and more balanced way of dealing with content moderation.
This new program for Community Notes is starting to launch in the US but would not terminate fact-checking efforts around other regions such as the EU. The backlash still asserts that doing this is sure to perpetuate even more proliferation of false content that Meta fails to prevent its onslaught.
Is Meta’s Move Politically Motivated?
The timing of Zuckerberg’s announcement has many raising an eyebrow, with some speculating that the move is politically motivated. In recent months, Zuckerberg has been seen trying to mend his relationship with former President Donald Trump, who has long accused Meta of political bias.
Meta recently donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration and added UFC CEO Dana White, a Trump ally, to its board. Critics argue that this could be an attempt by Zuckerberg to align himself with Trump’s administration and avoid further criticism from conservative circles.
Trump himself praised Meta’s decision, calling it a sign that the company had “come a long way.” When asked if Zuckerberg was responding to his past threats, Trump acknowledged, “Probably.”
Growing Threat Of Misinformation
This move has elicited warnings from a plethora of experts and organizations about Meta ending its fact-checking process. It has been expressed that the lack of professional oversight may flood the site with more misinformation. Co-founder of the Centre for Information Resilience, Ross Burley, warns that this will cause an uptick in bad narratives, especially as disinformation evolves at a faster pace than ever before.
Indeed, Meta has a questionable past with misinformation. In 2017, Amnesty International accused the company of abetting violence against the Rohingya people in Myanmar by failing to sufficiently moderate content. More recently, in 2021, a study found that algorithms on Facebook had failed to halt misinformation about the 2020 U.S. election, which garnered billions of views on false content.
Is Meta Really Abandoning Its Responsibility?
While Zuckerberg conceded that less egregious content will slip through the new system, he acknowledged that some “innocent” content may get caught up. Critics see this as a troubling abdication of responsibility on Meta’s part. Michael Wagner, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that the scenario was akin to relying on people who are not plumbers to fix a leaky toilet. “Meta now seeks to rely on just anyone to stop misinformation from spreading on their platforms,” he said.
Nora Benavidez, a senior counsel at Free Press, criticized the decision as part of a broader trend of billionaires prioritizing profits over social responsibility. She argued that Zuckerberg’s actions reflect an attempt to cater to dangerous political figures like Trump at the expense of the public good.
Will Community Notes Work?
Experts have been skeptical of the efficacy of Community Notes in fighting misinformation. Valerie Wirtschafter, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, noted that community-based approaches are just one piece of the puzzle but can’t be the sole solution for content moderation. “It certainly can’t be just rolled out as like an untailored, whole-cloth solution,” she said.
Meta’s withdrawal of fact-checking in the United States ignited a wave of reactions, both at the company itself and in wider society. A flood of misleading information continues to spread itself across social networks, and thus the question remains as to whether a community-driven way of moderation might stem the flow or lead instead to an uncontrollable flood of fictions.
ALSO READ | Throwback: When George H.W. Bush Vomited On Japanese PM Kiichi Miyazawa
