Meta's Zuckerberg gets rid of fact-checkers

[probinson]

“Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the new policy Tuesday. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”​

​

Zuckerberg, however, acknowledged a “tradeoff” in the new policy, noting more harmful content will appear on the platform as a result of the content moderation changes.​

​

Meta’s newly appointed Chief of Global Affairs Joel Kaplan told Fox on Tuesday that Meta’s partnerships with third-party fact checkers were “well intentioned at the outset but there’s just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact check and how.”​

​

The announcement comes amid a broader apparent ideological shift to the right within Meta’s top ranks, and as Zuckerberg seeks to improve his relationship with Trump before the president-elect takes office later this month. Just one day earlier, Meta announced Trump ally and UFC CEO Dana White would join its board, along with two other new directors. Meta has also said it will donate $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and that Zuckerberg wants to take an “active role” in tech policy discussions.​

​

Kaplan, a prominent Republican who was elevated to the company’s top policy job last week, acknowledged that the Tuesday announcement is directly related to the changing administration.​

​

He said that there’s “no question that there has been a change over the last four years. We saw a lot of societal and political pressure, all in the direction of more content moderation, more censorship, and we’ve got a real opportunity. Now, we’ve got a new administration, and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression, and that makes a difference.”​

​

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/meta-censorship-moderation/

​

 

[probinson]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1525382954801931

This is a stunning video. Specifically at the end where Zuckerberg talks about how the US government pushed for censorship over the last 4 years, and how there is now an opportunity with the help of the new administration to restore free expression.

 

[probinson]

The fact-checkers said they were blindsided by this decision and now don't know if their business can survive.

Meta’s fact-checking partners claim they were “blindsided” by the company’s decision to abandon third-party fact-checking on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads in favor of a Community Notes model, and some say they are now scrambling to figure out if they can survive the hole this leaves in their funding.​

​

Meta’s Fact-Checking Partners Say They Were ‘Blindsided’ by Decision to Axe Them​

 

[zippy2006]

Fine and good, but the free speech absolutism doesn't work on social media, particularly when it comes to ads. Ads are click-driven, and ideas that are crazy and false drive clicks. So the very way in which ads are monetized presents a giant incentive for the propagation of false information.

We have always had checks on free speech, and the new check that needs to be added is related to the old check on "false advertising." The only difference is that whereas a pre-internet advertiser was not allowed to advertise sugary cereal as healthy cereal, the current advertisers should not be allowed to drive clicks with information that is clearly known to be false.

An easy and innocuous example: The "John Deere truck." Why does everyone think John Deere is developing a truck? Because a number of individuals released AI-generated videos of a 2025 John Deere truck in order to drive clicks. So they make some cash and everyone else gets dumber. The end result is a loss of trust in the online platforms.

Musk and Zuckerberg need to devise an apolitical way to curb false advertising speech in an internet age.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

“Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the new policy Tuesday. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”​

​

Zuckerberg, however, acknowledged a “tradeoff” in the new policy, noting more harmful content will appear on the platform as a result of the content moderation changes.​

​

Meta’s newly appointed Chief of Global Affairs Joel Kaplan told Fox on Tuesday that Meta’s partnerships with third-party fact checkers were “well intentioned at the outset but there’s just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact check and how.”​

​

The announcement comes amid a broader apparent ideological shift to the right within Meta’s top ranks, and as Zuckerberg seeks to improve his relationship with Trump before the president-elect takes office later this month. Just one day earlier, Meta announced Trump ally and UFC CEO Dana White would join its board, along with two other new directors. Meta has also said it will donate $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and that Zuckerberg wants to take an “active role” in tech policy discussions.​

​

Kaplan, a prominent Republican who was elevated to the company’s top policy job last week, acknowledged that the Tuesday announcement is directly related to the changing administration.​

​

He said that there’s “no question that there has been a change over the last four years. We saw a lot of societal and political pressure, all in the direction of more content moderation, more censorship, and we’ve got a real opportunity. Now, we’ve got a new administration, and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression, and that makes a difference.”​

​

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/meta-censorship-moderation/

​

Although it's a good development Facebook is abandoning Fact Checkers and censorship - to me Zuckerberg's new attitude in this comes across as a defensive move in response to the meteoric rise of X in terms of source of news and discourse internationally in the past months; Facebook is simply losing relevance to X - he's trying to reverse that; a commercial defensive move.

I can't remember Zuckerberg complaining about Government censorship pressure in the past - he simply wasn't known to be an outspoken advocate for free speech like Elon Musk was. It's Musk who stood up for that despite being bullied about that by e.g. the EU.

He's just copying X's strategy now that Trump's administration will also provide safe international backing for the strategy X always had under Musk's leadership.

 

[zippy2006]

he simply wasn't known to be an outspoken advocate for free speech like Elon Musk was

Not like Musk, but he was an advocate. See for example his Georgetown University speech of 2019. If the Biden administration had not pressured Zuckerberg to censor information he would have made this shift earlier. Obviously the ascendency of Trump and Musk is helpful now, but Zuckerberg has been talking about this for awhile.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It is a good day for free speech

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1525382954801931

This is a stunning video. Specifically at the end where Zuckerberg talks about how the US government pushed for censorship over the last 4 years, and how there is now an opportunity with the help of the new administration to restore free expression.

Facebook fact-checking does not affect me because I never trust what I read on it. Citizen journalism seemed noble in 2010 when social media became popular, but now we see its flaws. Facebook is a private company and can set any policy as long as it is legal.

It's surprising that many Americans value "free speech" but don't fully understand it or censorship. Facebook, as a private company, can moderate content, and government pressure on Facebook doesn't violate free speech. If social media platforms want to avoid government censorship, they could register as news media, which would prevent government interference under constitutional law. However, platforms like Facebook resist this because they would then be accountable for all published content.

If the Biden administration influenced what Facebook can or cannot post, it would not constitute censorship. Facebook does not have any legal protection from government regulation in this context. To obtain such protection, Facebook would need to register as a news media outlet.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Not like Musk, but he was an advocate. See for example his Georgetown University speech of 2019. If the Biden administration had not pressured Zuckerberg to censor information he would have made this shift earlier. Obviously the ascendency of Trump and Musk is helpful now, but Zuckerberg has been talking about this for awhile.

If Musk or Zuckerberg truly supported free speech, they would register their social media platforms as news media to gain constitutional protection. This would require them to take responsibility for what is posted. Their goal isn't free speech; it's profit. Many Americans misunderstand censorship, and these tech leaders exploit that ignorance against the government.

 

[zippy2006]

If the Biden administration influenced what Facebook can or cannot post, it would not constitute censorship. Facebook does not have any legal protection from government regulation in this context. To obtain such protection, Facebook would need to register as a news media outlet.

This just isn't true. Social media platforms have first amendment rights. Facebook was free to adopt the policies that the Biden administration proposed, and it had a legal right to refuse to adopt those policies.
(https://www.cato.org/blog/scotus-co...atforms-have-first-amendment-editorial-rights)

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I find this a

“Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the new policy Tuesday. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”​

​

Zuckerberg, however, acknowledged a “tradeoff” in the new policy, noting more harmful content will appear on the platform as a result of the content moderation changes.​

​

Meta’s newly appointed Chief of Global Affairs Joel Kaplan told Fox on Tuesday that Meta’s partnerships with third-party fact checkers were “well intentioned at the outset but there’s just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact check and how.”​

​

The announcement comes amid a broader apparent ideological shift to the right within Meta’s top ranks, and as Zuckerberg seeks to improve his relationship with Trump before the president-elect takes office later this month. Just one day earlier, Meta announced Trump ally and UFC CEO Dana White would join its board, along with two other new directors. Meta has also said it will donate $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and that Zuckerberg wants to take an “active role” in tech policy discussions.​

​

Kaplan, a prominent Republican who was elevated to the company’s top policy job last week, acknowledged that the Tuesday announcement is directly related to the changing administration.​

​

He said that there’s “no question that there has been a change over the last four years. We saw a lot of societal and political pressure, all in the direction of more content moderation, more censorship, and we’ve got a real opportunity. Now, we’ve got a new administration, and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression, and that makes a difference.”​

​

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/meta-censorship-moderation/

​

I find this absolutely hilarious. Because when I think about all the times on these forums that someone tried to whip out a 'fact checker' to prove that conservatives were wrong about the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation, the Covid vaccine did not prevent transmission, and that the COVID 19 virus was leaked from a Wuhan lab. So, let it be known to Christian Forums that Mark Zuckerberg has rejected these "fact checkers" for the exact reason we conservatives have stated on numerous occasions. I pray I never see another, "I am right and you are wrong because Snopes said so."

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

This just isn't true. Social media platforms have first amendment rights. Facebook was free to adopt the policies that the Biden administration proposed, and it had a legal right to refuse to adopt those policies.
(https://www.cato.org/blog/scotus-co...atforms-have-first-amendment-editorial-rights)

Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of this ruling.

 

[NxNW]

I can't remember Zuckerberg complaining about Government censorship pressure in the past - he simply wasn't known to be an outspoken advocate for free speech like Elon Musk was.

There was no government censorship of Facebook. That's already been established. It's also been established that Musk is banning anyone on Twitter who criticizes him.

 

[NxNW]

If the Biden administration had not pressured Zuckerberg to censor information he would have made this shift earlier.

The Biden administration never pressured anyone to censor anything.

 

[probinson]

The Biden administration never pressured anyone to censor anything.

Fact check: Pants on fire.

 

[DaisyDay]

“Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the new policy Tuesday. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”​

​

Zuckerberg, however, acknowledged a “tradeoff” in the new policy, noting more harmful content will appear on the platform as a result of the content moderation changes.​

​

Meta’s newly appointed Chief of Global Affairs Joel Kaplan told Fox on Tuesday that Meta’s partnerships with third-party fact checkers were “well intentioned at the outset but there’s just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact check and how.”​

​

The announcement comes amid a broader apparent ideological shift to the right within Meta’s top ranks, and as Zuckerberg seeks to improve his relationship with Trump before the president-elect takes office later this month. Just one day earlier, Meta announced Trump ally and UFC CEO Dana White would join its board, along with two other new directors. Meta has also said it will donate $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and that Zuckerberg wants to take an “active role” in tech policy discussions.​

​

Kaplan, a prominent Republican who was elevated to the company’s top policy job last week, acknowledged that the Tuesday announcement is directly related to the changing administration.​

​

He said that there’s “no question that there has been a change over the last four years. We saw a lot of societal and political pressure, all in the direction of more content moderation, more censorship, and we’ve got a real opportunity. Now, we’ve got a new administration, and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression, and that makes a difference.”​

​

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/meta-censorship-moderation/

​

Why not replace the fact checkers rather than abolish fact checking?

Oh well, not my monkey, nor my circus: I detest FB.

 

[Say it aint so]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1525382954801931

This is a stunning video. Specifically at the end where Zuckerberg talks about how the US government pushed for censorship over the last 4 years, and how there is now an opportunity with the help of the new administration to restore free expression.

I agree when there's a pandemic disseminating the world and the US is stacking dead bodies like chord wood with ICUs being overran and first responders overworked, it IS government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of it's citizenry and advise media to ensue the safety. It's not as those the government is intervening to censure because the president didn't like a private citizen's personal criticism.

 

[probinson]

I agree when there's a pandemic disseminating the world and the US is stacking dead bodies like chord wood with ICUs being overran and first responders overworked, it IS government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of it's citizenry and advise media to ensue the safety. It's not as those the government is intervening to censure because the president didn't like a private citizen's personal criticism.

During the pandemic, the government crafted a narrative that was rife with misinformation and disinformation and colluded with social media companies to censor anyone who dared to disagree with the nonsensical and unscientific bull-dookie that the government sanctioned and was pushing.

I'm continually amazed at the people that call for government-sanctioned "facts" to be the only discourse allowed. It's as if they don't value free speech at all.

 

[probinson]

Why not replace the fact checkers rather than abolish fact checking?

Because "fact-checking" isn't really a thing that requires an approved entity to perform.

When someone purports to be a "fact-checker", they are using that title to pretend like their analysis carries more weight than someone else's. The things that get "fact-checked" are often quite subjective. During COVID, I posted an op-ed article from the WSJ authored by a doctor at Johns Hopkins. This article was "fact-checked" by Lead Stories and flagged on Facebook. But there's just one problem with that; you can't "fact check and OPINION piece. And why on earth would some flunky's analysis at Lead Stories carry more weight than an actual doctor at Johns Hopkins?

The correct response to misinformation is NOT censorship by some dubiously appointed fact-checker. The response to misinformation should be correct information.

Misinformation is far less of a concern to me than government censorship. But it would appear that the governments around the world have succeeded in propagandizing people to believe that they alone can "protect" them from (anything they deem to be) misinformation.

 

[iluvatar5150]

During the pandemic, the government crafted a narrative that was rife with misinformation and disinformation and colluded with social media companies to censor anyone who dared to disagree with the nonsensical and unscientific bull-dookie that the government sanctioned and was pushing.

I'm continually amazed at the people that call for government-sanctioned "facts" to be the only discourse allowed. It's as if they don't value free speech at all.

We all value free speech. The problem is that the "free speech" advocates were pumping out orders of magnitude more nonsense than the government was.

There isn't really a good solution here. I don't think the fact-checkers did a very good job and I don't think their efforts would've been very successful even if they'd been perfect. But the other guys are far, far worse.