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

A recent webinar co-organized by WACC and the World Council of Churches on the churches’ role in misinformation and disinformation highlighted the dilemmas all of us face to effectively challenge lies online, whether deliberately created or inadvertently shared.

Fact-checking has become one of the essential fronts against disinformation and misinformation – by dedicated organizations, news agencies and affected non-profits. But as Eliot Higgins, himself a co-founder of a fact-checking organisation, Bellingcat, points out, it only addresses the symptoms of our technological and societal shift, not the root causes.

In the webinar, Higgins broke down the multiple reasons for the rise and impact of disinformation and misinformation – from people’s sense of fear and breakdown of trust with institutions to the easy search for answers online and algorithms which increasingly direct the user farther into answers and communities that build on their original fear.

Fact-checking, while a vital resource, has no impact on those who don’t trust the source in the first place and have found a community which validates their distorted views.

“Facts” are important in response to misinformation but won’t prevent it. “Access” is vital to increase people’s opportunities for information and participation but can’t guarantee the quality of that interaction. “Education” is critical but also needs the right tools and approach – not to mention language. And structural issues – ownership of media and digital platforms, government regulation, economic and political transparency – all impact people individually and collectively.

Education and digital resilience is obviously key, but the conversation highlighted the importance of community. How can people link to and be strengthened by communities which support honest, open, and truthful communication?

Once again, we are reminded how fundamental a holistic communication environment is for a fair, participatory, democratic society.

WACC, along with many other membership organisations, approaches the end of the year with renewal reminders to our personal and organisational members. For WACC, it’s not so much about the income – although membership fees all go to our regional associations for their activities and networking.

Rather, it is becoming much more imperative to see engagement in WACC as part of that vital community connection that helps people and institutions to value access, freedom of expression, and the skills and knowledge to critically assess the information that swirls around us.

Let’s champion facts. But let each of us also actively network and connect people to our community so that we are all strengthened to contribute and participate in an informed society.

Read more about the webinar and watch the recording.

Photo: Patpitchaya

A press release dated 20 October 2021 announced a merger between Trump Media & Technology Group and Digital World Acquisition Corp., stating that its new mission would be “to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight back against the ‘Big Tech’ companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.”

The network will be trialled in an unfinished version (called a beta launch) in November 2021, with full rollout in the first quarter of 2022. A subscription video-on-demand service will follow called TMTG+ featuring entertainment, news, and podcasts.

According to “The Observer view on Donald Trump’s Truth Social” (24 October 2021), “The newly formed company behind the app… plans to disseminate what it calls ‘anti-woke’ news, debate, and entertainment to Americans deprived of honest, impartial media outlets. This is total drivel, of course, coming from the mouth of the most shameless liar in modern US history.”

At the international symposium on “Communication for Social Justice in a Digital Age” (13-15 September 2021), participants identified several criteria for a communication and information ecosystem based on inclusive participation, freedom, equity, and solidarity. It should:

• enable everyone to exercise fully their human rights, civil rights, and responsibilities;
• strengthen a sense of belonging and collective participation;
• encourage alliances and coalitions that build credibility, mutual accountability, and trust;
• seek to include and celebrate missing, ignored, silenced, and marginalized voices in the digital sphere;
• combat explicit and implicit bias, racism, gender discrimination, and extremism on digital platforms;
• express solidarity with the communities it serves, and not be profit- or power-oriented;
• encourage platforms that promote community, cohesion, collaboration, and relationship-building for human wellbeing and the wellbeing of the planet.

These are not values espoused by Donald Trump. His track record and his stated intention to foment rivalry tell us that he will use his new social media platform to sow further discord and division.

According to The Washington Post’s Fact Checker (January 24, 2021), “By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency – averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day.” And yet to date, there seems to be no way of holding him to account.

Fact checking is vital, but it is akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Attempts to regulate TRUTH is likely to be as successful as reining in Trump’s monumental ego.

Image: Draw a Dream/Shutterstock