KUALA LUMPUR — Tech giant Meta Platforms Inc., known for owning Facebook and Instagram, recently announced that it will continue using fact-checkers outside of the United States “for now.”
This decision comes despite the discontinuation of the practice domestically.
So, what’s behind this decision? Let’s break it down.
Meta plans to replace third-party fact-checkers in the US with a community notes system. Nicola Mendelsohn, Meta’s head of global business, mentioned that the company wants to observe the results of this change before making any decisions about a transition in other regions.
“We will see how that goes as we move it out over the year. So, nothing is changing in the rest of the world at the moment. We are still working with those fact-checkers around the world,” she said, as quoted by Bloomberg on January 21.
The backstory on fact-checking
Fact-checking was introduced by Meta a decade ago to combat the spread of viral hoaxes on Facebook. However, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, recently pointed out that the system was making “too many mistakes” and unfairly censoring users. As a result, Meta decided to shift to a community notes system in the US.
Abandoning fact-checking outside the US could pose challenges for Meta due to stricter regulations on online misinformation in other countries. For instance, the European Union’s Digital Services Act requires large platforms to actively remove deceptive political content and disinformation, or face hefty fines.
Adding to the complexity, Zuckerberg has indicated that Meta would work with President Donald Trump to counteract countries that restrict free expression.
Trump, who was temporarily banned from Facebook following the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, has labelled the platform “the enemy of the people.” However, he welcomed Meta’s move to eliminate fact-checkers, stating that Meta had “come a long way.”
Impact on Malaysia
On January 8, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said that Meta’s removal of independent fact-checking on its platforms may not affect Malaysia’s social media community anytime soon. “At the moment, I don’t see it affecting the Malaysian market, only in the United States,” he said.
Fahmi highlighted that the Community Notes model, based on crowdsourcing, has pros and cons. “This could be a positive thing, as the public can comment and contribute explanations on content that was uploaded to Facebook, for example, and it would be highlighted instead of being buried in the comments section,” he said.
Prominent lawyer Derek Fernandez provided insights into the legal implications of removing fact-checkers in Malaysia.
“The removal of so-called ‘fact checkers’ from platforms will not in any way affect the operation of laws relating to online harms and information security nor affect any legal liability under the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998.”
“A fact check run (and often paid for) by a platform is merely the opinion of that platform as to what it thinks is the correctness of a fact,” said Fernandez who is also an Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Commissioner.
“The fact checker may be correct, it may be wrong, or in some cases made with the intent to support and create a false or correct narrative. This opinion is not legally binding on the Government in the enforcement of laws.”
He urged the public to verify facts portrayed on social media through official government sources and independent verification.
“Do not assume anything is true or factual unless you verify and satisfy yourself through several independent and credible sources after proper research or direct official sources.
“Adopting this approach will help reduce the risk of you becoming a victim of scams, harmful advice, or fake information.”
Criticism and concerns
Meta’s decision to continue using fact-checkers outside the US while replacing them with a community notes system domestically reflects its cautious approach to managing misinformation. The move has received mixed reactions, with both praise and criticism highlighting the complexity of policing online content.
The decision to eliminate fact-checkers has not gone without criticism. Fact-checking organisations argue that this move could encourage hate speech online and incite violence offline. Sarah Shugars, an assistant professor of communication at Rutgers University, said that the removal of fact-checkers would exacerbate bias on the platform.
“Mr. Zuckerberg doesn’t want to be in the business of arbitrating truth, but he is. The removal of fact-checkers and loosening of policies will only serve to discourage free speech and exacerbate bias on the platform. Claiming otherwise would be laughable if the repercussions were not so serious,” she said,
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) expressed concern that Zuckerberg’s decision threatens to “undo nearly a decade of progress” in fact-checking on Facebook.
The IFCN also dismissed Zuckerberg’s claim that the fact-checking program had become a “tool to censor” users, emphasising that Meta makes the final decision on how to handle content flagged as false by fact-checkers.
“The freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech,” the IFCN said. – January 23, 2025