SAN FRANCISCO: Independent monitors voiced concern Tuesday that Meta’s recent decision to ditch fact checks on their Facebook platform could endanger human rights.
Meta’s surprise announcement in January that it was ending its US fact-checking program triggered scathing criticism from disinformation researchers who warned it risked opening the floodgates for false narratives.
Now, the board that serves as the top court for Meta content moderation decision says the social media giant’s announcement about policy and enforcement changes to the handling of hateful and potentially harmful posts was made “hastily,” according to a statement by the Meta Oversight Board released Tuesday.
“People have the right to express controversial opinions,” said board co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
“People should also be safe from harm.”
Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg released the news in a sweeping policy shift that analysts saw as an attempt to appease then US President-elect Donald Trump, who has equated checking facts with censorship.
As Meta rolls out the moderation changes globally, it is essential that the tech giant mitigate human rights perils that may result from a reduction or absence of fact-checking, according to the board.
The oversight board made 17 recommendations, including that Meta assess the effectiveness of Community Notes compared to third-party fact-checking, “particularly in situations where the rapid spread of false information creates risks to public safety.”
Meta had employed third-party fact checkers, AFP among them, to expose misinformation disseminated by the platform.
Zuckerberg said Meta’s platforms, Facebook and Instagram, would instead use “Community Notes similar to X” in the United States to police accuracy of posts.
Community Notes is a crowd-sourced moderation tool that X, formerly Twitter, has promoted as the way for users to add context to posts, but researchers have repeatedly questioned its effectiveness in combating falsehoods.
“You wouldn’t rely on just anyone to stop your toilet from leaking, but Meta now seeks to rely on just anyone to stop misinformation from spreading on their platforms,” Michael Wagner, from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told AFP when Meta announced the change.
“Asking people, pro bono, to police the false claims that get posted on Meta’s multi-billion dollar social media platforms is an abdication of social responsibility.”
While Meta has vowed to honor the board’s rulings on appeals of its decisions to take down or leave up posts, the tech company does not have to abide by its policy recommendations.