Meta Shifts from Fact-Checking to Community-Based Content Moderation Amid Bias Concerns
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, is undergoing a significant shift in its content moderation strategy, moving away from its established third-party fact-checking program to a community-driven approach. This change, initially rolled out in the United States, raises questions about the future of fact-checking partnerships globally, including in Australia, where Meta currently contracts with reputable organizations like AAP and RMIT University. The company’s decision comes after years of touting the effectiveness and user satisfaction with its fact-checking initiatives, marking a notable departure from its previous stance.
The social media giant, which has invested billions in safety and security measures, including a substantial workforce dedicated to content review, previously championed its multi-pronged approach to combatting misinformation. This strategy involved removing harmful content, reducing its visibility, and informing users through warning labels applied to content flagged by fact-checkers. Meta had consistently emphasized the program’s success, citing internal surveys that indicated user approval of the warning labels and their perceived fairness. The company also highlighted the significant volume of content flagged in Australia, totaling millions of pieces across Facebook and Instagram in recent years.
Despite these prior assertions, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg now claims that the fact-checking system is inherently biased, particularly in the US political landscape. He alleges that fact-checkers, influenced by the legacy media’s narrative surrounding misinformation, have eroded trust rather than fostered it. Zuckerberg argues that this alleged bias necessitates a new approach, advocating for a community-led system known as Community Notes. This system, according to Meta, will empower users to collectively assess and moderate content, potentially offering a more decentralized and less susceptible-to-bias alternative to expert-driven fact-checking.
This policy shift has significant implications, particularly in the context of Australia’s ongoing efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation. Meta is a signatory to the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, a voluntary framework designed to address the growing concerns about misleading content online. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has reported rising public concern regarding misinformation, fueled by instances like the spread of false information surrounding the fictional Bondi Junction Mall tragedy in March 2024. The rise of generative AI, which allows for the easy creation and dissemination of misinformation, further complicates the situation.
While Meta has pledged to carefully consider its obligations in countries like Australia before implementing changes to its fact-checking program, the US shift signals a potential global trend. The future of Meta’s partnerships with Australian fact-checkers remains uncertain, with contract renewals appearing unlikely in light of this strategic shift. This raises concerns about the potential impact on the fight against misinformation in Australia, particularly given the country’s reliance on Meta’s platform for news and information dissemination.
The transition to a community-led system presents both potential benefits and challenges. While community involvement could offer a more diverse range of perspectives and reduce reliance on centralized authorities, it also raises concerns about the potential for manipulation, bias within the community itself, and the capacity of a distributed system to effectively handle the sheer volume of content generated on Meta’s platforms. The effectiveness of Community Notes in combating misinformation, particularly in the face of sophisticated disinformation campaigns and the proliferation of AI-generated content, remains to be seen. As Meta navigates this transition, the Australian media landscape, and indeed global information ecosystems, will be closely watching the implications of this significant policy change.
