Meta's policy change: farewell to facts?
Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg has announced last week that content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads will no longer be reviewed by third-party fact-checking teams. Instead, as with Elon Musk's X platform, the company will rely on user comments as a corrective. The change will initially only apply for the US. Europe's press sees it as symptomatic of a global trend and discusses appropriate responses.
An opportunity for traditional media
Now is the time for journalism to prove its worth, writes Le Temps:
“After some newsrooms recently chose to favour the use of generative AI or sensationalism, the current situation offers media the opportunity to set themselves apart. ... If the quality of information as a whole is deteriorating, now more than ever the media have the chance to position themselves as beacons of reliability, offering their audience quality content and facilitating debates based on journalistic ethics. This is where their added value lies. It is essential that our political authorities recognise this added value and ensure that a sector that our democracies need more than ever does not fall by the wayside.”
Fact-checking obsolete
Why check facts at all, Hotnews asks provocatively:
“Zuckerberg has said he will work with Trump, which would be unimaginable for someone from the press. A newsroom can't work with the president, but a social network can. It's unclear what will happen on social media from now on. But you can't help but wonder whether the whole idea of fact-checking is simply obsolete. Or, more precisely, whether the moment in history has arrived when we realise that no one is really interested in our facts and figures anymore. Why pay people to check facts when everyone lives in their own reality anyway?”
Carte blanche for fake news
Fact-checking is more important than ever now, argues the Times of Malta:
“The Covid pandemic demonstrated the usefulness of independent fact-checking on Facebook. Fact-checkers helped curb much harmful misinformation and disinformation about the virus and the effectiveness of vaccines. ... without Meta's funding, they will likely be hampered in their efforts to counter attempts to weaponise fact-checking by other actors. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently announced the establishment of a state fact-checking network following 'Russian values', in stark difference to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles. ... This makes independent, third-party fact-checking even more necessary. But clearly, Meta doesn't agree.”
End anonymity on online platforms!
El País has the magic formula against hate on the internet:
“The number of reports of blackmail through sex videos tripled [in Spain] between 2018 and 2023. ... The concealment of one's own name is behind all this and thus constitutes an affront to human civilisation that is based on its very existence. How would we live without proper names? Anonymity – a cornerstone of Zuckerberg and Musk's business – encourages slander and defamation. ... We need to drastically limit it on digital platforms. ... Hopefully the idea that to protect freedom of expression we must not protect anonymity, but abolish it, will prevail.”
Overregulation is slowing Europe down
Le Figaro sees the EU caught in a vicious circle:
“Why are none of the leading tech companies European? ... Why were three of them founded by Elon Musk? In recent years the EU has taken great satisfaction in creating regulations without ever asking itself the killer question: isn't there a connection between the fact that the EU is at the forefront of regulating digital and AI issues and the fact that it is a third-rate player in these areas? The EU seems to be caught in a vicious circle. Frightened by the potential use of these technologies, it overregulates. This limits their development and makes Europe technologically dependent on others – which in turn reinforces its fears and its drive to regulate.”
Understandable from Zuckerberg's point of view
The Meta boss is simply trying to help his company, Zeit Online reflects:
“Zuckerberg's initiative may be prompted by the fact that two of the key areas in which Meta operates are also fields in which Musk's companies are active. Besides social networks this is primarily artificial intelligence (AI), in which Meta has invested billions. It can't be ideal for Meta if the president only ever listens to the competition on these topics. In fact, how well you get on with the president is likely to be crucial for economic success under a Trump administration. The term 'oligarchy' is increasingly pertinent. In this context, it is actually understandable from Zuckerberg's point of view to have acted in this way.”
This "freedom" undermines democracy
La Repubblica also sees a confrontation with the EU ahead:
“The way Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of the control of content published by Facebook highlights that this is an epochal turning point whose impact goes beyond 'fact-checking'. ... For him, Trump's victory shows the will of Americans to 'prioritise free speech', but this comes at the price of reopening the door to lies that are systematically circulated with the goal of undermining the democratic process. He then sharply attacked Europe: 'We're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more'. According to Zuckerberg we have an 'ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalising censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there'.”
Why now?
Helsingin Sanomat says the timing of this move is no mere coincidence:
“Naturally, the freedom Zuckerberg presents in his video is a good thing. Freedom of expression and pluralism are good things in principle. What Zuckerberg doesn't say, however, is what the company's new algorithms will look like. ... The most problematic aspect is the timing, regardless of what one may think of the reforms. What does it say about America that the country's most important private media company is changing course entirely at the same time as the country's leadership is changing?”