Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, announced Eliminating Third-Party Fact-Checking Programs in the United States. A controversial choice, which divides users and public opinion, causing concerns and abandonment. It is no coincidence, in fact, that it is enough to take a look at the analysis platforms SEO to see it splash search volume on phrases like “delete facebook account” and similar.
Ma Not everyone agrees that eliminating fact-checking is necessarily a bad thing.. In fact, it is a system that (understandably) has demonstrated inaccuracies and ambiguities over time. These have given rise to criticisms on the politicization and prejudice of the control and verification bodies of the posts: a complex and varied system, which we will now better understand how it is structured and how it works.
Content index
How Meta's Fact-Checking Program Worked in the US
The fact-checking program just trashed by Meta in the US involved over 90 independent organizations, operating in more than 60 languages. These evaluated and classified suspicious content according to the following parameters:
- Reports from users: high number of reports of falsehood, deception or inadequacy.
- Sensitive topics: such as healthcare, politics and conspiracy theories.
- Contradiction with reliable sources: information that disagrees with official data or authoritative institutions.
- Manipulated images or videos: use of altered or out of context visual content.
- Unreliable sources: coming from pages or accounts known to spread hoaxes or unreliable.
- Sensationalistic language: provocative headlines, extreme claims, or unsupported generalizations.
- Viral spread: content that spreads quickly and generates polarization.
When a post had one or more of these characteristics it was labeled as “False” or “Partly False”. Her visibility so it came reduced, limiting the negative impact on virtual communities. They were then apply limitations to sharing too, Until you get to fines for repeated diffusions. In the end it was also possible to proceed with the elimination in case of content that propagates hate speech, incitement to violence, scams or physical harm such as suggestions for dangerous medical treatments.
This system, although effective, has often been criticized for alleged political bias and for lack of transparency in the criteria used to classify content. The certainty is that its elimination leaves a significant void: how will it be filled?
Meta Fact-Checking in the US Is Now in the Hands of Users… But Is It Really So?
Meta has therefore decided to adopt the “Community Notes” system. This post verification model is already used by X (formerly Twitter) and we know that is based on direct contributions from users, which can add context or information to posts that are considered misleading. The basic idea is promote a community approach, where users themselves collaborate to ensure the quality of information.
Obviously This model has many problems. In fact Not all users can participate to the current verification process on Meta, but only those selected for activity on the platform, good reputation and high score based on the quality and reliability of the contents. All this, with the support of theartificial intelligence. So from an inclusive approach we risk falling into the opposite: that is, falling intoambiguity, in politicization and in mystification. Without external professional and neutral bodies, one could encourage the dissemination of partial or manipulated information, favoring those who have political power on the platform itself.
As we know, in fact, orToday more than ever, politics and digital corporate are connected and interdependent. There is therefore a concrete possibility that this move by Zuckeberg, rather than a “gift” to users, is a de-responsibilization and a free pass for political propaganda.
Beyond conjectures, however, We are offering this prospect as a possibility and a risk, not as a certainty.. We will see the certainties over time, monitoring the situation trying to observe it in the most objective way possible. We will not fail to keep you updated.
And in Italy?
In our country fact-checking is still carried out by local partners including Political report card e Fact News, but if Meta decided to extend the shelving of these activities in favor of users, we too would find ourselves facing very similar problems and critical issues.
For now there is no certainty about it. Here too we will wait and see and, depending on what happens, we will make our decisions. Decisions that it seems are already being made here in Italy based on what happened in the USA: in fact, we repeat, SEO analysis platforms such as Ahrefs and Trends attest that more and more users are looking for how to delete themselves from Facebook and so on…
Apparently there is not much trust in general in the level of education and intellectual honesty of either users or platforms or political classes.
What do you think?
