Photo credit: www.cbc.ca
In a recent coffee table book reflecting on his initial term, president-elect Donald Trump openly criticized Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, indicating that Zuckerberg may have played a role in manipulating the 2020 election. This bold claim aligns with various conspiracy theories that circulated widely on social media, including on Facebook and Instagram.
This narrative was eventually disproven by independent fact-checkers, part of a third-party group funded by Meta to verify content on its platforms.
On a notable Tuesday, Zuckerberg declared the discontinuation of Meta’s fact-checking program within the United States, a move that received approval from Trump.
This abrupt decision from Zuckerberg seems to be a strategy to protect Meta from growing pressure from Republican lawmakers and activists who aim to undermine the credibility of fact-checking efforts linked to social media platforms.
The conclusion of the program has led to a significant moment of introspection for fact-checking organizations, prompting discussions about the efficacy and relevance of their roles in light of the overwhelming spread of misinformation.
“Fact-checking has faced significant criticism,” remarked Katie Sanders, editor-in-chief of PolitiFact, which participated in Meta’s fact-checking initiative until very recently. “The landscape is shifting, and there is certainly a sense of apprehension regarding what this means moving forward.”
WATCH | Meta ending fact-checking program on Facebook, Instagram in U.S.
Meta ending fact-checking program on Facebook, Instagram in U.S.
Meta’s termination of its fact-checking operations on major platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads will be supplanted with a system akin to the ‘Community Notes’ feature seen on Elon Musk’s X platform.
‘Let’s just label it’
The practice of fact-checking is not novel; it has been a critical component of journalism since the 1930s.
However, as social media gained traction in the 2000s, dedicated fact-checking organizations, such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, emerged to scrutinize the statements made by public figures more rigorously.
The 2016 presidential election marked a pivotal shift for the disinformation landscape, notably with Donald Trump’s frequent dissemination of falsehoods, compounded by fears of foreign interference on social media platforms. These factors exerted immense pressure on platforms like Facebook to adopt protective measures.
Despite efforts to control misinformation, Facebook’s fact-checking program has been a contentious issue, encountering dissatisfaction from both liberal and conservative factions. Frustrations arose when some believed the program failed to adequately address misinformation and others felt their viewpoints were disproportionately scrutinized.
Republican-led backlash
In recent times, skepticism surrounding fact-checking initiatives has intensified, evolving into hostility from various political sectors.
Republican lawmakers and conservative groups have directly challenged alliances such as The Election Integrity Partnership, effectively stifling its operations amid a barrage of legal pressures last June.
Brendan Carr, Trump’s appointee to lead the Federal Communications Commission, has vocally criticized the fact-checking practices of prominent tech companies, alleging they foster a “censorship cartel” and hinting at possible regulatory consequences.
Carr has specifically highlighted concerns regarding NewsGuard, a fact-checking organization that has rated the credibility of various news outlets, including some that have courted controversy around the 2020 election.
“Misinformation affects everyone, irrespective of political affiliation,” noted Gordon Crovitz, co-CEO of NewsGuard and a longtime Republican voice. He emphasized the importance of reliable information in a democratic context.
Zuckerberg gets fact-checked
The halting of Meta’s fact-checking program is part of a wider attempt to relax content restrictions under the banner of “free speech.”
This also includes revised policies allowing for more inflammatory language concerning LGBTQ individuals.
In his announcement, Zuckerberg suggested that the fact-checking initiatives were overly politically charged.
He claimed that ending the program would significantly curb what he described as censorship across Meta’s platforms.
However, fact-checking advocates have pushed back against this assertion, clarifying that the partners involved in the program did not have the authority to remove misleading content but merely provided warnings following thorough reviews.
According to Sanders, the fact-checking process is an intricate one, requiring time and expertise to effectively address claims.
Much of the content flagged by fact-checkers was not primarily political misinformation but took the form of scams and misleading digital content.
“The established goal of the program was largely to address non-political disinformation,” explained Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the Security, Trust and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech.
PolitiFact’s fact-checking work encompassed a broad range of topics, correcting misinformation related to public safety incidents and health claims.
“The absence of this program might lead to a more chaotic online environment where misleading claims flourish unimpeded,” said Sanders.
Moving forward, Zuckerberg indicated that the fact-checking efforts would transition to a format reminiscent of Community Notes, where crowd-sourced verification is utilized.
Nonetheless, criticism has arisen regarding whether such a model can foster impartiality or simply devolve into a battleground for political factions.
With high supply comes high demand
While Meta is halting its U.S. fact-checking initiatives, its Canadian division, run by Agence France-Presse, continues its operations.
AFP expressed concern over the implications for the fact-checking sector and journalism following Zuckerberg’s announcement.
As a key financial supporter of various fact-checking bodies, Meta’s withdrawal is likely to instigate significant shifts in the industry landscape.
Despite these challenges, Sanders asserted that fact-checking is an enduring necessity in combating misinformation, a sentiment echoed by Crovitz. “The level of misinformation is at an all-time high,” he remarked, citing threats from foreign entities and the emergence of generative AI.
“There is an increasing recognition among various stakeholders about the need for accurate information and a collective effort to mitigate misinformation’s detrimental effects.”
Source
www.cbc.ca