“Real-World Harm” Warning from Fact-Checkers

Web Desk — A global fact-checking network has warned sternly about the potential “real-world harm” if Meta expands its decision to halt fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram. The warning challenges Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s assertion that such moderation equates to censorship.

Zuckerberg’s Surprise Announcement

Earlier this week, Zuckerberg announced plans to significantly reduce content moderation policies in the United States, citing concerns about political bias among fact-checkers. He claimed the program had led to “too much censorship.”

However, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which includes over 80 member organizations like AFP, disputed Zuckerberg’s claims, labeling them “false.” The IFCN emphasized the need to set the record straight and highlighted the critical role of fact-checking in combating misinformation.

Global Implications of Meta’s Decision

Meta currently collaborates with fact-checking programs in over 100 countries. The IFCN warned of devastating consequences if Meta’s policy shift extends beyond U.S. borders.

“Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence, and even genocide,” the network cautioned. The loss of fact-checking programs could exacerbate these risks.

United Nations Weighs In

In Geneva, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk supported regulating harmful online content, dismissing claims that it constitutes censorship. Turk stated, “Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real-world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship.”

The Impact of Meta’s Fact-Checking Program

Through its fact-checking initiative, Meta collaborates with organizations worldwide to combat misinformation. Posts rated “false” are demoted in news feeds, and users attempting to share such posts receive explanatory articles about their misleading nature.

Supinya Klangnarong, co-founder of the Thai fact-checking platform Cofact, expressed concerns about how the policy might affect other countries. “Allowing the proliferation of hate speech and racist dialogue could be a trigger for violence,” she said.

Zuckerberg’s Relationship with Trump

Meta’s policy change comes shortly before U.S. President-elect Donald Trump assumes office. The timing has raised eyebrows, with critics noting the alignment between Meta’s decision and Republican Party positions.

Zuckerberg has faced criticism from Trump for alleged bias. In recent months, he has sought to mend relations, meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and donating $1 million to his inauguration fund. Additionally, Zuckerberg appointed UFC head and Trump ally Dana White to Meta’s board.

Global Reactions

Meta’s decision has drawn strong reactions from various nations:

Australia labeled the move a “very damaging development.”
Brazil warned it was “bad for democracy.”

Meta’s involvement in fact-checking began after Donald Trump’s 2016 election, amid criticism that disinformation on Facebook and interference by foreign actors, including Russia, influenced the outcome.

Concerns for the Future

Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the IFCN, stated that Meta’s decision came under “extreme political pressure” and would harm social media users seeking reliable information.

With the potential global impact of Meta’s policy shift, critics argue that the stakes are too high to abandon fact-checking efforts, especially in an era defined by widespread misinformation.