We expected 2025 to be a challenging year for human rights defenders, if only from the global political turmoil U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump is promising.
For many, though, Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement on 7 January that Meta would replace fact checkers on Facebook and Instagram with the “community notes” system adopted by Elon Musk’s X just elevated “challenging” to “disastrous.”
Zuckerberg’s claim that this move prioritizes “freedom of expression” over political bias itself demonstrates political motivation. The announcement was quickly branded as corporate self-interest* to align with the incoming U.S. administration rather than altruistic trust in Facebook’s community of 3 billion to moderate themselves.
This shift in policy and practice has huge ramifications across the globe for informed public discourse, democratic participation and individual and community safety. In fact, to judge whether this move is indeed rights-based, one can ask, Who will benefit and who will suffer?
Given who has expressed pleasure in the move, conservative and far-right politicians and activists – who have felt that their forthright opinions and truth-claims have been censored – will benefit.
Potentially, Meta as a company could benefit by attracting increased support particularly from the incoming U.S. administration and its allies, by gaining influence in U.S. legislation, and by decreasing its administration and financial expenses by reducing or eliminating its global moderation team and its financial support for independent fact checkers.
And who will be adversely affected? Those who already are targets of gender-based abuse, misogyny, racism, and disinformation campaigns in the first place.
By removing barriers to hate speech in a stated bid for “freedom of expression” for some, Meta will undoubtedly be silencing more who find such platforms unsafe and unwanted.
And the larger question of who will suffer surrounds the impact of an expected growth in misinformation and disinformation.
Since Facebook instigated its independent fact-checking in 2016 around the time of the election of Donald Trump to his first term as U.S. president, there has been considerable evidence that the warning labels attached to misleading content (not censoring or removing) have slowed the spread of misinformation, notably during the Covid pandemic.
Where does this leave all of us who believe in respectful dialogue and public space, informed democracy, and knowledge based on facts to inform policy and practice?
Will we see alternative platforms gain prominence, and an exodus of subscribers from Facebook, similar to those who left X for BlueSky and others – an online polarization of discourse? Will there be enough people with the energy and commitment to be the responsible community calling out lies and hate on these platforms? Can we collectively strengthen legislative efforts led by the European Union with its Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act that prioritise accountability and transparency while promoting innovation and helping smaller businesses to gain a foothold in a global market dominated by a handful of Big Tech companies?
These and more are valid actions and necessary. What is not possible is not to engage.
Even if we say “No” to being on Facebook, we will live in a world where such social media platforms will play a huge role in shaping the societies in which we live. As The Guardian reported, Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa said that relaxing content moderation on Facebook and Instagram would lead to a “world without facts” – “a world that’s right for a dictator.”
More than ever, we must support public interest journalism and independent fact-checkers who are now further in the firing line of populist politics. Our rights –including freedom of expression – depend on them.
____________
* For example, by the BBC and Article 19.
Image: Kemarrravv13/Shutterstock