Will Banning Fact-Checking Preserve Neutrality?
Published in Sankei Shimbun
(Japan) on 19 January 2025
by (link to original)
Major U.S. IT company Meta, which operates social networking sites Facebook and Instagram, is discontinuing its U.S. fact-checking system, in which a neutral party judges the veracity of content in social media posts.
The spread of disinformation and slander incites antagonism among users with differing beliefs and deepens the rifts in U.S. society. Fact-checking is an indispensable feature of highly public social media networks. One cannot help but shake one's head in disbelief over Meta's undeniably abrupt decision.
The timing of the change coincides with the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Donald Trump on Jan. 20. Trump and his conservative supporters have criticized fact-checking as being censorship influenced by progressive left-leaning forces and the Democratic Party.
Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that the “fact-checkers have been too politically biased” and that "they destroyed more trust than they created,” acknowledging that they have gone to extremes. The decision also likely took Trump into consideration. At the same time, the move is not unrelated to the liberal side's waning fortunes, which became strikingly obvious in last year's presidential election.
Meta began its fact-checking program in 2016, after Trump's presidential election victory. During that time, there were many voices saying that the spread of disinformation, including Russian election interference through social media, could "undermine democracy."
However, under President Joe Biden's administration, political correctness surrounding race, sex and creed was carried to the extreme in fields such as education. This led to censorship, and in truth, many citizens felt stifled as a result.
Meta also stated that fact-checking [according to Zuckerberg] resulted in, “too many mistakes and too much censorship,” He pointed out that for all of the posts removed in December 2024, “one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes.” If the system is used to remove only posts that are counter to the liberal side, then it will defeat the purpose.
In place of the fact-checking system, Meta will instead be introducing a “Community Notes” feature, in which users can submit supplementary information about a post. Meta is following in the footsteps of social media platform X (formerly known as “Twitter”), which implemented a similar feature. Meta's platforms have over 3 billion users worldwide.
As a result of this system change, the amount of disinformation will increase, rendering the feature useless. Instead, the opportunity should be taken to strengthen effectiveness through continuous improvement and to operate social media in a neutral capacity.
Meta just began fact-checking in Japan last September. Social media is frequently used during elections, but it is also an easy target for interference from neighboring despotic nations. We hope to see a system that strikes a balance between free speech and public welfare.
The spread of disinformation and slander incites antagonism among users with differing beliefs and deepens the rifts in U.S. society. Fact-checking is an indispensable feature of highly public social media networks. One cannot help but shake one's head in disbelief over Meta's undeniably abrupt decision.
The timing of the change coincides with the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Donald Trump on Jan. 20. Trump and his conservative supporters have criticized fact-checking as being censorship influenced by progressive left-leaning forces and the Democratic Party.
Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that the “fact-checkers have been too politically biased” and that "they destroyed more trust than they created,” acknowledging that they have gone to extremes. The decision also likely took Trump into consideration. At the same time, the move is not unrelated to the liberal side's waning fortunes, which became strikingly obvious in last year's presidential election.
Meta began its fact-checking program in 2016, after Trump's presidential election victory. During that time, there were many voices saying that the spread of disinformation, including Russian election interference through social media, could "undermine democracy."
However, under President Joe Biden's administration, political correctness surrounding race, sex and creed was carried to the extreme in fields such as education. This led to censorship, and in truth, many citizens felt stifled as a result.
Meta also stated that fact-checking [according to Zuckerberg] resulted in, “too many mistakes and too much censorship,” He pointed out that for all of the posts removed in December 2024, “one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes.” If the system is used to remove only posts that are counter to the liberal side, then it will defeat the purpose.
In place of the fact-checking system, Meta will instead be introducing a “Community Notes” feature, in which users can submit supplementary information about a post. Meta is following in the footsteps of social media platform X (formerly known as “Twitter”), which implemented a similar feature. Meta's platforms have over 3 billion users worldwide.
As a result of this system change, the amount of disinformation will increase, rendering the feature useless. Instead, the opportunity should be taken to strengthen effectiveness through continuous improvement and to operate social media in a neutral capacity.
Meta just began fact-checking in Japan last September. Social media is frequently used during elections, but it is also an easy target for interference from neighboring despotic nations. We hope to see a system that strikes a balance between free speech and public welfare.
Previous article![]( "Will World Heed Trump’s Threats?")
Next article![]( "Trump’s Happy To Play the ‘Madman’ To Restore Global Order. But Will It Work?")
