Facebook and Instagram get rid of fact checkers

[edwest4]

So, let's see. Instead of employing actual experts, we'll rely on Joe Nobody and his brother Bob to... uh... to... uh, something...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly74mpy8klo

 

[GTX]

Yep, we don't want no stinking' fact checkers here...much prefer our delusional fantasies and alternate facts...mixed with a heavy dose of conspiracy theories.

 

[_Del_]

Unintentionally hysterical headline:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/business/mark-zuckerberg-meta-fact-check.html
Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

They are adjusting to new political realities.

 

[quellish]

They are adjusting to new political realities.

They want to be the first data center to open in the territory of Greenland.

 

[4decaa]

I believe that community notes have actually been quite effective on twitter so far.

this also saves them from having to pay actual fact checkers, but I don't see users of Instagram let alone Facebook being able to self-moderate as accurately as twitter users do. Different platforms with different needs, and Twitter is far less of a 'social media' than the latter two.

 

[DWG]

The big question is whether the EU will consider this compatible with the Digital Services Act. It's possible this is Meta's attempt to comply with https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2373 , but I don't see the EU being happy with doing away with fact-checkers. It implicitly creates a confirmation bias centred on the louder, more extreme elements of your audience.

Ah, from the BBC report: "Meta says it has "no immediate plans" to get rid of its third-party fact checkers in the UK or the EU." = not compatible with UK or EU Digital Services Acts.

 

[Nicknick]

Those "fact checkers" are pure censorship an clearly biased to the left side here in Germany (don't think it differed in the US). We had a great mock up story from one of the most prominent fact checkers (Correctiv) which had significanty political influence but turned out to be completly invented without facts.

Here you find an interview with a German Lawyer who is very sucsessfully fighting for the freedom of speech. He reversed many deleted and manipulated statements on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter by court. Fact checkers are not truly truth oriented....

https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/meinu...mit-dem-anwalt-joachim-steinhoefel-ld.1828541
Google translate will do the job...

 

[DWG]

I believe that community notes have actually been quite effective on twitter so far.

Unless you're Elon Musk, who's clearly allowed to get away with saying anything he wants, cf the attacks on Keir Starmer and Jess Phillips, no matter if he's swearing North is South.

 

[TMA1]

Guys, guys, relax. They removed those fact checkers so that a new bunch of fact checkers could replace them. Their objectivity is already assured thanks to the research of trusted NGOs like Focus on the Family and Heritage Foundation. I am sure this will ease some of the concerns you guys seemed to be having! ;-)

Seriously though Nicknick is right. Those "fact checkers" were essentially corporate commissars. They did indeed correct misinformation and outright falsehoods, but they had an... interesting way of interpreting information when that information did not align with their "values". Once I started to see phrases like "malinformation" unironically used i got pretty disturbed by the whole thing.

 

[edwest4]

What a load of baloney. Fact checkers are obviously biased but the general public is not? Give me a break. If I was unscrupulous, I'd make sure to include a few wolves among the sheep. Anonymous people rule? Hardly. In order to remove anyone from a message board where I am a moderator, I have to make my argument to two other people and get their OK in order to remove that person.

This is just more crap dressed up by lawyers.