Meta’s Potential End to Third-Party Fact-Checking: A Return to the Pre-2016 Era of Disinformation?
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, appears poised to discontinue its globally implemented Third-Party Fact-Checking Program. This move, hinted at by Meta’s second-in-command Joel Kaplan, follows CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s justification for ending the program in the US earlier this year, citing alleged political bias among fact-checkers. This claim, however, contradicts Meta’s long-standing defense of the program’s effectiveness and ignores the tumultuous history that led to its creation in the first place. Prior to 2016, Facebook operated for twelve years without external fact-checking, a period marked by a proliferation of misinformation and manipulation that ultimately forced the platform to change course.
The impetus for Facebook’s embrace of fact-checking stemmed from the widespread dissemination of disinformation during the 2016 US presidential election. Studies revealed the significant influence of fake news articles on the platform, often outperforming legitimate news sources in terms of engagement. Facebook’s algorithms inadvertently directed users to disinformation websites, contributing to the spread of misleading narratives. The platform also became a conduit for foreign interference, with Russian-backed advertisements reaching millions of users. The subsequent Cambridge Analytica scandal, involving the misuse of user data to target political ads, further underscored the vulnerabilities of the platform and its potential impact on democratic processes.
Faced with mounting criticism and evidence of its platform’s role in spreading misinformation, Facebook initiated the Third-Party Fact-Checking Program in late 2016. This decision followed a proposal from the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), urging Facebook to collaborate with independent fact-checkers to combat the growing global problem of disinformation. The IFCN’s letter highlighted instances where false information circulating on Facebook had incited violence and undermined public health campaigns. The partnership with fact-checkers represented a significant shift for Facebook, acknowledging the need for external oversight to address the platform’s shortcomings.
The program operates by having trained fact-checkers review content flagged by users and applying labels to posts deemed false or misleading. Crucially, fact-checkers do not have the power to remove content, instead providing users with contextual information and links to evidence-based refutations. This approach prioritizes transparency and empowers users to make informed decisions, recognizing that freedom of expression includes the right to express false statements, while also ensuring the availability of accurate information to counter those falsehoods. Meta has touted the program’s success, citing internal data showing a significant decrease in user engagement with labeled content.
Despite the program’s apparent effectiveness, Zuckerberg’s decision to discontinue it raises concerns about a potential regression to the pre-2016 era, characterized by unchecked misinformation. His claim that fact-checkers have eroded trust stands in contrast to both Meta’s own data and the widespread recognition of disinformation as a threat to democracy. Experts and authorities, not just the media, have extensively documented the detrimental impact of misinformation on elections and public discourse. The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) warned that discontinuing the program could embolden foreign interference in future elections.
The proposed replacement for the fact-checking program involves greater reliance on Meta’s Community Notes system, a crowdsourced approach where users contribute notes to provide context and identify potential misinformation. While proponents argue that Community Notes can complement the work of professional fact-checkers, concerns remain about its effectiveness and susceptibility to manipulation. Critics point to the slow response times for notes to appear on viral disinformation and the potential for organized groups to influence the system. Ensuring the quality and reliability of Community Notes, as well as preventing its manipulation, will be crucial to its success. Key improvements include prioritizing expert-sourced notes over user consensus, accelerating the appearance of notes on rapidly spreading misinformation, and implementing measures to prevent manipulation by organized groups or users with multiple accounts. Furthermore, establishing consequences for users who repeatedly share debunked information and ensuring transparency in the platform’s moderation of Community Notes are essential steps to build trust and efficacy.
Ultimately, the success of any system designed to combat misinformation hinges on a commitment to transparency, accountability, and the prioritization of reliable information. Meta’s decision to end its Third-Party Fact-Checking Program raises serious questions about its commitment to these principles. The future of online information ecosystems depends on platforms taking responsibility for the content they host and implementing effective strategies to counter the spread of harmful misinformation. Whether Community Notes can adequately fill the void left by professional fact-checkers remains to be seen. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Meta’s shift represents a genuine effort to improve its platform or a retreat to a more permissive environment for disinformation.