There would be “real-world harm” if Meta extends its decision to eliminate fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram, a global network warned on Thursday, disputing Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that such moderation amounts to censorship. Is similar to.
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise announcement this week to ease content moderation policies in the United States has sparked concern in countries like Australia and Brazil.
The tech tycoon said fact-checkers were “too politically biased” and the program led to “too much censorship”.
But the International Fact-Checking Network, which includes AFP among its dozens of member organizations globally, said the claims of censorship were “false”.
“We want to set the record straight for both today’s context and the historical record,” the network said.
Facebook pays about 80 organizations globally, as well as WhatsApp and Instagram, to use fact checking.
The International Fact-Checking Network has warned that it could have devastating consequences if Meta changed its policy for programs covering more than 100 countries beyond US borders.
“Some of these countries are extremely vulnerable to disinformation that promotes political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide,” the network said.
It added, “If Meta decides to halt the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in losses in many locations in the real world.”
‘Real world consequences’
The UN rights chief also stressed in Geneva on Friday that regulating harmful content online “is not censorship”.
Volker Turk said on X, “Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship.”
AFP currently works with Facebook’s fact-checking scheme in 26 languages.
In that program, content with a “false” rating is downgraded in the news feed, so fewer people will see it and if someone tries to share that post, they are presented with an article stating That’s why it’s confusing.
Supinya Klangnarong, co-founder of Thai fact-checking platform CoFact, said Meta’s decision could have tangible effects offline.
“It’s understandable that Meta has this policy aimed at US users, but we can’t be sure what impact it will have on other countries,” he told AFP.
“Allowing the spread of hate speech and racist dialogue could incite violence.”
Cofact is not an accredited member of the international fact-checking network or Facebook’s fact-checking scheme.
Zuckerberg presented Trump in court
Meta’s policy change comes less than two weeks before US President-elect Donald Trump takes office and is in line with the Republican Party’s stance.
Trump has been a harsh critic of Meta and Zuckerberg for years, accusing the company of bias against him and threatening to retaliate against the tech billionaire if returned to office.
Zuckerberg has been trying to reconcile with Trump since his election in November, meeting him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and donating one million dollars to his inaugural fund.
The Meta chief also named Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) chief Dana White, a close Trump ally, to the company board.
Angie Drobnik Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, said Tuesday that the decision came after “extreme political pressure.”
The move “will harm social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family.”
Australia said Meta’s decision was “a very damaging development”, while Brazil warned it was “bad for democracy”.
Meta’s move into fact-checking comes in the wake of Trump’s shock election in 2016, which critics say was made possible by rampant disinformation on Facebook and interference from foreign actors, including Russia, on the platform.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
