Helle Thorningová-Schmidtová, co-chair of the independent supervisory board assessing content on the social networks Facebook and Instagram, on Wednesday expressed great concern about the impact on minorities of Meta’s parent company’s decision to drop independent fact-checking. According to AFP, experts also express concerns about the spread of misinformation, writes TASR.
Meta, which owns both Facebook and Instagram, announced Tuesday that it is ending independent third-party fact-checking on its platforms. It will now leave such verification up to users, similar to what Elon Musk’s social network X already does.
Former Danish prime minister Thorning-Schmidt told the BBC that the announced changes would bring “huge problems”, including the potential impact on the LGBTQ+ community, as well as gender and transgender rights. “We witness many cases where hate speech can lead to real damage, so we will monitor this space very carefully,” she told the BBC.
She also insists that the supervisory board, of which she is co-chairman, is currently needed more than ever before.
This independent body is funded by the Met and was created by the then president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, who announced his departure less than a week ago. Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg says the decision was motivated “returning to our roots in the area of freedom of expression”. According to him, the third parties currently used by the company for fact-checking are “too politically biased”, which allegedly led to “censorship” of too many social network users.
However, journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa believes that Zuckerberg’s claim to support freedom of speech is completely misguided. “You can only say that if you want profit – only if you want power and money” she told AFP. He says social media users and democracy are facing “extremely dangerous times” as a result of Meta’s decision.
AFP reminds that Meta took this step after years of criticism from supporters of the future US president Donald Trump, that conservative voices were censored or suppressed under the guise of fighting disinformation. However, professional fact-checkers strongly reject these claims.
“Abandoning formal fact-checking in favor of tools like user exploitation has failed in the past,” pointed out Nora Benavidezová from the non-profit organization Free Press.
“Twitter has tried it and it can’t handle the volume of misinformation and other violent, violent content,” she added, referring to the network, which was renamed X after being bought out by Musk in 2022.
The richest man in the world then within a few weeks abolished the teams responsible for trust and security and as a tool for content moderation, he introduced the so-called community notes, a way for users to add context to posts.
Researchers say the lowering of security restrictions on X and the reinstatement of once-banned accounts of known disinformation have turned the social platform into a paradise for spreading false information.
“Although research supports the idea that user fact-checking can be effective if done correctly, it’s important to remember that it’s meant to complement professional verification – not replace it,” emphasized Gordon Pennycook of Cornell University in New York.
According to Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the research center at Cornell University, Meta’s new approach ignores studies that show users are providing context. “largely motivated by attitudes towards political parties and tend to over-attack their political opponents”.
