Meta’s canceling content fact-checking would cause real world harm

An international fact-checking network warned Thursday that Meta’s expansion of its decision to unverify posts on Facebook and Instagram will cause real-world harm, denying Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that content moderation amounts to censorship.

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise announcement this week that he would ease content moderation policies in the United States has sparked concern in countries such as Australia and Brazil.

The tech mogul said fact-checkers were very politically biased and that the program led to a lot of censorship.

But the International Fact-Checking Network, which is among dozens of member organizations worldwide, said the allegation of censorship was false.

“We want to make things clear, both in today’s context and in the historical context,” International Fact-Checking Network added.

Facebook pays for fact-checking from about 80 organizations worldwide on the platform, as well as on WhatsApp and Instagram.

The International Fact-Checking Network warned that Meta’s expansion of its policy change beyond the borders of the United States to include programs covering more than 100 countries could have devastating consequences.

“Some of these countries are at high risk of misinformation leading to political instability, election interference, mass violence and even genocide”.

“If Meta decides to shut down the program globally, it will almost certainly cause real-world harm in many places,” the International Fact-Checking Network added.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed in Geneva on Friday that regulating harmful content online “is not censorship”.

“Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real-world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship,” Volker Türk said via XN.

AFP currently works in 26 languages ​​with Facebook’s fact-checking system.

Through this program, content classified as “misleading” is lowered in news feeds, so fewer people see it, and if someone tries to share that post, it suggests an article explaining why it is misleading.

Meta’s decision could have tangible effects offline, said Sopinya Klangnarong, co-founder of Thai fact-checking platform Cofact.

“It is understood that this policy by Meta is targeting users in the United States, but we cannot be sure how it will affect other countries,” she added in a statement to Agence France-Presse.

She stressed that “allowing the spread of hate speech and racist dialogue may constitute a motive for violence”.

Cofact is not an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network or Facebook’s fact-checking system.

Meta’s policy changes come less than two weeks before US President-elect Donald Trump takes office, and are in line with the Republican Party’s position.

Trump has been a vocal critic of Meta and Zuckerberg for years, accusing the company of bias against him and threatening to retaliate against its CEO once he returns to office.

Zuckerberg has been making efforts to reconcile with Trump since his election in November, meeting with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and donating $1 million to a fund set aside for his inauguration.

He also appointed UFC President Dana White, a close ally of Trump, to the company’s board of directors.

The decision came after “intense political pressure,” Angie Drobnik Hollan, director of the International Verification Network, said Tuesday.

“This move will harm social media users who are looking for accurate and reliable information to make decisions about their daily lives and interactions with friends and family,” she added.

Australia, for its part, considered Meta’s decision to be “a very harmful development,” while Brazil warned that it was “bad for democracy”.

Meta had ramped up fact-checking in the wake of Trump’s surprise election in 2016, after observers said the spread of misinformation on Facebook and foreign interference on the platform, including Russia, contributed to his victory.