Fact-checkers had no doubts about the real audience for this week’s news, delivered through Mark Zuckerberg’s medium of choice: clunky video messages. That means, starting in the US, Meta is abandoning professional third-party fact-checking across its network and adopting the user-driven “community notes” model used in X.
“This is all aimed at currying favor with President Trump,” one fact-checker wrote on a private WhatsApp channel where the community gathered to vent, as soon as the news broke. Their public response made the same point a little more diplomatically.
But a serious question lies across the Atlantic: how the European Union would react to Mr Meta’s cuts if the next US president were in the audience. The answer could have implications for fact-checkers far beyond Europe’s borders.
Meta’s fact-checking program currently spans 130 countries and is the largest single source of funding for fact-checking worldwide. The plan was finalized within weeks after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when Zuckerberg came under intense scrutiny over Facebook’s fake news scandal, with lobbying from fact-checkers themselves. Not long ago, Mehta boasted that he had spent about $100 million on fact-checking efforts since 2016.
Still, fact-checkers have long worried that the social media giant could change course again if the political winds change. “I know that most of us have relied on these resources, but deep down we all knew this day would come,” said the founder of Turkish fact-checking site Teyit. Mehmet Atakan Foca wrote on his WhatsApp channel. “We want you to see this as a fresh start, an opportunity to rebuild from the ground up.”
Stress test for new disinformation laws
What exactly the new policy means for fact-checkers around the world will depend on how quickly and broadly Meta rolls out the policy outside the United States. The company was cautious about the question, except to tell reporters it had “no immediate plans” to stop fact-checking in the EU, which would be seen as an agreement to its obligations under EU law. has taken an ambiguous attitude.
The EU has led the world in building a sophisticated and comprehensive regulatory framework for digital platforms spread around the world, such as Meta and Google, under the Digital Services Act. The newly strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation was developed with input from across civil society and is designed to work in conjunction with the DSA, to help reduce the risks posed by online disinformation. It explicitly requires platforms to collaborate with researchers and fact-checkers, “including making fair financial contributions to fact-checkers.” ‘ work”.
However, its regulatory framework is incomplete and untested. Elon Musk’s EU case against Mr. However, it remains unresolved. Meanwhile, all major platforms appear to be falling significantly short of their commitments under their self-regulatory codes of practice. If these promises become a code of conduct as envisaged by the DSA, questions still remain unresolved as to how platforms will need to engage with fact checkers and what their enforcement will look like. It’s a problem.
So far, the EU’s comment on Meta’s move is that major platforms must “carry out a risk assessment and send it to the EU Commission” before cutting ties with European fact-checkers. Only. What the agency says and does next will be an important test of DSA principles and could help shape Meta policy around the world.
Carlos Hernández Echevarría, head of policy at Spanish fact-checker Maldita, said the DSA’s intentionally vague language was designed to be positive and cooperative, and that “U.S.-based The industry argues that it is being exploited by the “increasing reluctance of U.S.-based industries to do anything meaningful for the United States.” Misinformation and other online abuse. But the law is now in place and needs to be enforced. ”
“Ultimately, the European Commission will have to say publicly whether these platforms have ‘effective risk mitigation’ measures in place against misinformation. The concept is broad. But I don’t think that can be said about many things,” he added.
A weekly look at how technology is shaping our lives
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
uncertain outcome
Still, the prevailing assumption among fact-checkers is that Meta will phase out third-party fact-checking in Europe and around the world after piloting its new community notes system in the United States. In his comments, Zuckerberg took aim at the “increasing number of laws that industrialize censorship” in Europe and pledged to “work with President Trump” to roll back regulations around the world. Brazil has filed legal demands against the company to clarify what Meta intends to do with its fact-checking efforts on the ground.
It is difficult to predict what the outcome of the global fact-checking movement that has grown over the past two decades will be, but it will likely be dramatic. About 40% of the fact-checkers who signed the International Fact-Checking Network’s principles required to participate in Meta’s program operate for profit. Many of them rely on meth for their entire income. If the program were to completely disappear, perhaps a third of Meta’s 90 partners around the world would cease operations or close their fact-checking departments.
But almost all of the others will be forced to lay off staff and significantly scale back operations. This includes fact-checking efforts based in dozens of nonprofits and universities, from Brazil to Bosnia to Bangladesh, that use the money they make to debunk misinformation on Facebook and Instagram to In addition to funding the cost of fact-checking politicians, the funds are also used to operate media literacy programs and implement policy initiatives. We are working on developing new technologies to fight disinformation.
Rappler, a Philippine site founded by Nobel laureate Maria Ressa, concluded that “what happened in the United States is just the beginning.” “This is an ominous sign that the fight to preserve and protect our personal agency and shared reality will become more dangerous.”
