Introduction to Meta’s New Policy

As of Monday, Meta will no longer employ fact-checkers in the United States, according to Joel Kaplan, the company’s chief global affairs officer, as announced.

This significant policy shift was first announced by Meta in January, concurrent with the loosening of its content moderation rules, marking a substantial change in the company’s approach to managing online content.

Background and Context

The timing of this change is noteworthy, coinciding with the inauguration of President Trump, an event that Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg attended. Prior to the inauguration, Zuckerberg had donated $1 million to the inauguration fund. Around the same time, Dana White, a longtime ally of Trump and the CEO of UFC, was added to Meta’s board, further highlighting the political landscape surrounding these decisions.

Mark Zuckerberg expressed his perspective on these changes in a video, stating, “The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” This stance underscores Meta’s evolving approach to content moderation and free speech on its platforms.

Implications of the Policy Change

However, the emphasis on prioritizing speech, as expressed by Zuckerberg, also raises concerns. Some of the speech that is being prioritized may come at the expense of marginalized communities, potentially exacerbating existing social issues.

Meta’s hateful conduct policy allows for allegations of mental illness or abnormality based on gender or sexual orientation, given the political and religious discourse around transgenderism and homosexuality. This policy reflects the complex and often contentious nature of the discussions that Meta’s platforms host.

Community-Based Moderation

Meta is adopting a community-based approach to moderation, similar to Community Notes on Elon Musk’s X, where users play a significant role in moderating content rather than relying solely on professional fact-checkers.

As Kaplan explained, the initial Community Notes will be introduced gradually across Facebook, Threads, and Instagram without any penalties, marking a shift towards more community-driven content evaluation.

Effectiveness and Concerns

While community-based moderation can provide valuable context to controversial posts, its effectiveness is enhanced when used in conjunction with other moderation tools. However, Meta’s decision to eliminate some of these tools raises concerns about the spread of misinformation.

The core of Meta’s business is user attention, and reduced content moderation can lead to more posts being visible, including those that generate strong reactions. This approach can inadvertently promote the spread of misinformation, as the algorithm tends to surface content that elicits a significant response.

Consequences of Reduced Fact-Checking

Already, as Meta begins to dismantle its fact-checking programs, instances of false content going viral have been observed. A Facebook page manager, who spread a false claim about ICE paying individuals to report undocumented immigrants, viewed the end of fact-checking as beneficial, according to ProPublica.

Kaplan, in a statement made in January, outlined the rationale behind these changes, saying, “We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity, and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate.” He emphasized the importance of parity between what can be discussed on Meta’s platforms and what is permissible in other public forums, such as TV or Congress, underscoring the company’s stance on free speech and content moderation.