Alexia Maddox’s Post

We're excited to see Open Terms Archive's work referenced in Dr. Alexia Maddox's latest blog post: "Thinking Through Meta's Fact-Checking Changes: What it Means for Australia" ! Amidst significant changes to Meta's fact-checking and hate speech policies, Dr. Maddox's article is a valuable contribution to the public debate about how platform governance influences: 🔎 misinformation dissemination in specific contexts (Australia in this case) 👥 who can participate in online discourse, and 🧠 what strategies we need to adopt to safely navigate online information and AI-generated content At Open Terms Archive, our mission is to bring transparency to digital platform policies, providing structured data that can foster important discussions like this. #Policy #OpenData #DigitalGovernance #TechEthics

Meta’s announcement today marks a historic step backward in trust and safety. By stripping away fact-checking and content moderation, they’re not just letting harmful content slip through the cracks—they’re throwing the doors wide open, fully aware of the damage they’re inviting in. Instead of working toward solutions, they’re doubling down on amplifying harm while actively blocking others from researching and mitigating these risks. This isn’t just another policy update—it’s a signal of a more dangerous era ahead, one where our most vulnerable, especially teens, will be left even more exposed to toxic content. By enabling unchecked disinformation, Meta is knowingly chipping away at the pillars of our democracy. They’re fully aware of the harm they’re allowing. They could stop it. But once again, they’re choosing not to. https://lnkd.in/gDSW5TXA

Meta's choice to end its U.S. fact-checking program has faced strong backlash from experts, who warn it may increase false narratives. https://lnkd.in/dKMk_baM

https://lnkd.in/ezXEEyBt "Meta’s decision to end its partnership with fact checkers in the US is disappointing and a backwards step that risks a chilling effect around the world." "From safeguarding elections to protecting public health to dissipating potential unrest on the streets, fact checkers are first responders in the information environment. Our specialists are trained to work in a way that promotes credible evidence and prioritises tackling harmful information - we believe the public has a right to access our expertise. We absolutely refute Meta's charge of bias - we are strictly impartial, fact check claims from all political stripes with equal rigour, and hold those in power to account through our commitment to truth. " "Like Meta, fact checkers are committed to promoting free speech based on good information without resorting to censorship. But locking fact checkers" out of the conversation won’t help society to turn the tide on rapidly rising misinformation. Misinformation doesn’t respect borders, so European fact checkers will be closely examining this development to understand what it means for our shared information environment. Chris Morris – 7 January 2025 This is, of course, the latest erosion of benefits to make the elite rich even richer. #EnshittificationOfEverything. See Financial Times article in the comments #DripDripErosion #FalseGods #FullFact #Trust #Truth #Transparency #Challenging #Unbiased #Just #LoveAndPeace

Meta's Shift Away from Fact-Checking: A Dangerous Precedent? Meta's decision to replace its fact-checking program with a "Community Notes" system has sparked significant debate. While CEO Mark Zuckerberg argues this prioritizes free speech, concerns abound. This move could lead to increased misinformation, hate speech, and a potential erosion of accountability. Critics argue it aligns with political agendas and could embolden authoritarian regimes. Cherie Oyier says the decision raises critical questions about the balance between free expression and responsible content moderation in the digital age. #FreeSpeech #Misinformation #DigitalRights #ContentModeration

At Media Diversity Institute, we’re focused on making sure media is not just diverse but also accurate and inclusive. I wrote about the latest #Meta policy changes and their impact on tackling misinformation. Meta’s decision to scale back professional fact-checking and shift toward a community-driven model marks a significant change in its content moderation strategy. Here are my 3 key takeaways from this policy change: 1️⃣ The risk of unchecked misinformation: Without professional oversight, misinformation could flourish, leading to real-world consequences. From violence fueled by false claims to disinformation in global conflicts, the dangers of misinformation are tangible and far-reaching. 2️⃣ Impact on media diversity: Marginalised communities face heightened risks of misrepresentation without rigorous fact-checking. Meta’s approach could shrink the space for equitable narratives and allow harmful stereotypes to thrive. 3️⃣ Contradictions with global regulation efforts: Meta’s retreat from fact-checking comes as governments worldwide push for stricter content moderation to ensure accountability. This policy shift seems at odds with growing regulatory frameworks demanding greater responsibility from tech platforms. Read more about the implications of this decision below!

Misinformation doesn’t just distort reality—it destroys trust. Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program in favor of a “Community Notes” system raises profound concerns about the future of our digital spaces. Framed as a return to “free expression,” this shift is, by their own admission, a “trade-off” that will allow more “bad stuff” to slip through. But at what cost? Misinformation doesn’t just distort individual perspectives—it undermines public trust, destabilizes communities, and erodes the foundations of democracy. This is more than a policy change; it’s a signal of where Meta is heading, and it leaves us all vulnerable. Who benefits from this decision? And more importantly, who loses?

With the rise of disinformation and hate speech online, this decision by Meta has raised too many concerns. “We're going to dramatically reduce the amount of censorship on our platforms” can be the door open for hateful and harmful narratives to flourish. And this was an issue even before Meta's decision to scale down fact-checking efforts.

I thought my first message in the new year was going to be something else, but now - here's my reaction to Meta's decision to end the third party fact-checking program in the US (for now). The work of fact-checkers has never, at any point, represented censorship. Organizations like Faktograf, adhering to professional standards, provided additional context in their articles for information circulating on Meta's platforms. However, decisions about which content to remove and how to regulate it were always and exclusively made by Meta. To the best of our knowledge, content was never removed solely because fact-checkers investigated its accuracy. Believing that most people do not intentionally share false information but rather seek accurate and useful information, we chose to collaborate with Meta. This often exposed us to brutal harassment campaigns, death threats, violence, and constant insults directed at our journalists. Considering Mark Zuckerberg’s delivery of his decision, we now expect a new wave of such behavior. It is important to understand that this decision currently applies to the United States. What will happen and how it will unfold in the rest of the world, particularly in the EU, remains unclear. Meta, like other major online platforms, is subject to certain regulations, which we hope will continue to protect the integrity of information in the European public sphere. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that Faktograf.hr operated even before joining Meta’s fact-checking program and will continue to do so if Meta decides to terminate the program entirely because we deeply believe that citizens have the right to factually accurate information. The messages recently disseminated by Elon Musk and Zuckerberg show that the phase of attacks on the media has borne fruit, and democratic procedures and electoral processes worldwide are being increasingly threatened. Given the political situation in the U.S., Zuckerberg has primarily made a business decision for the short-term profit of his company. Unfortunately, the benefit for those who rely on these platforms for information is inversely proportional. This is precisely why it is crucial for European institutions to insist on enforcing laws applicable in the EU and to prevent US Big Tech monopolies from doing as they please in our digital space. Faktograf - Association for the Informed Public will therefore continue its work. You can follow us as early as tonight, as we will be fact-checking claims live during the HRT debate ahead of the presidential election.

Meta has ended its fact-checking program and is reinstating political content on its platform. I feel like we should be more concerned about this. #Meta #FactChecking #SocialMediaPolicies