Foresights

Have you been following recent news from Meta? Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and Owner of Meta, recently released a video stating that Facebook, Instagram and Threads will be “getting rid of” all fact checkers on the platform. All Meta platforms will move to a ‘Community Notes’ model in a bid to eradicate censorship and encourage greater levels of free expression. 

One should not ignore the timing of this announcement; it came shortly before the second inauguration of Donald Trump and shortly after Sir Nick Clegg (former Liberal Democrat Leader in the UK) announced he would be stepping down from his role as President of Global Affairs at Meta where he dealt with issues around harmful, inaccurate and politically biased content.  

Over the next couple of months, this new policy will come into effect in the United States. Eliminating all fact checkers on Meta’s platforms brings Meta into line with Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) platform’s policy. In this blog, I will attempt to flag some issues I foresee with these changes. The concern is that this decision to actively cull third party fact checkers will have detrimental costs for business and societies in and beyond the United States. 

“Free speech” is a central tenet of free and democratic societies.  But the question is – what does it mean to speak freely? 

The erasure of third-party moderation means free speech without boundaries on Meta.  

Similar to pre-2018, it is likely harmful content will appear on Meta platforms. 

In his video, Zuckerberg said that Meta are going to remove some of the filters keeping harmful content at bay.  Zuckerberg unapologetically said: “We’re going to catch less of the bad stuff…” adding “but we’ll also reduce the amount of content that is being taken down mistakenly.”

Effectively, under the banner of “free speech” Zuckerberg is removing restrictions on topics like ‘immigration and gender identity’ which are contentious and the subject of heated debate on Meta platforms and wider US / global society. 

Instead, they will concentrate their moderation on illegal content. Zuckerberg says he is not condoning a social media free-for-all; however, this move raises important questions around safeguarding Meta users. In the UK, an offender can be prosecuted if they have shown hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity. This is effectively known as a hate crime and is covered by the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) and the Sentencing Act (2020). In the US, the laws are not as clear. According to the U.S Department of Justice, “hate crime laws in states and territories vary widely across jurisdictions.” Therefore, when discourse on the gender debate and immigration get out of hand and harmful comments appear – who’s job will it be to support those who will inevitably feel attacked and alienated? Will one group try to take it down and the other side put it back up again?  What laws will be there to protect vulnerable users from harm?

With the implementation of these changes, users are given an opportunity to jump on negative content that will only cause the algorithm to spike and spew more hateful content. 

Why would Zuckerberg do this? 
 
One reason Zuckerberg is keen to revoke filters and preach free speech is to appease Donald Trump. Prior to Trump’s re-election, Zuckerberg made a number of public statements which were fairly scathing about him.  In a recent BBC Newscast podcast, Vivian Schiller, Executive Director of Aspen Digital and Former Head of News on Twitter (as was), explained Trump was previously banned from Meta platforms due to comments he had made about 6 January 2021 - the day of the attack on the US Capitol in Washington D.C.  Four years on, he has completed 180-degree turn in his attitude.  

Meta seems so keen to appease the new president, they have even moved their HQ from LA (a voting democratic state) to Texas (a strongly republican voting state). They plan to work with Trump to counter policies in the EU and Latin America in order to combat ‘censorship.’ After all, according to Zuckerberg, the recent elections are a “cultural tipping point” where the United States is “once again prioritising speech.”

So, free speech is obviously high on Zuckerberg and Trump’s shared agenda, but what’s really happening behind the scenes at Meta?  Why has Zuckerberg rejected the “fact checkers” he brought in, in 2018? 

I think “getting rid” of fact checkers is a rogue move. 

Let’s start with some definitions. A Facebook fact checker was not a faceless AI bot. They were living, breathing human beings with journalistic experience. Many are also employed by respected news organisations such as Associated Press, ABC News and USA Today. In short, these third-party assets prioritise evidence-based information and they report or correct fake news on Meta platforms. They also come from long standing news outlets which many Americans rely on for their day-to-day news. In my view, as a communications professional, doing away with this team of journalistic experts provides the perfect breeding ground for fake news. It will fester and it will grow, and many users will start to reinforce completely fake narratives by sharing information far and wide on these platforms. 

But it’s not going to be a free-for-all, is it? Not entirely.  Zuckerberg is replacing third-party fact checkers with self-selecting, crowd-based fact-checking i.e. Community Notes.  

Every Meta user will have the right to flag whether a piece of information is deemed wrong or harmful. CBS News on Community Notes say: “if the algorithm finds that contributors who voted on a given note represent an ideologically diverse group, then the note becomes visible on the platform. But if the algorithm finds that the voting contributors are too uniform in their political views – a possible sign of bias – ‘the public never sees it.’" Algorithmic censorship? Errr - I think so!

A cultural shift is on the horizon. It’s speculation at this stage, especially since these changes haven’t been implemented yet. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, and this version of unregulated free speech will lead to more innovation like Trump and Zuckerberg say they want to see? But let’s zoom out for a second.  How will businesses contend with this cultural shift? And how will they utilise public relations to make sure that factual information is deployed? 

First, creative sectors in the US will need to up their game, as they will now be competing with timelines and homepages flooded with more political, controversial, and attention-grabbing content. Will some businesses move from being a-political, or at least politically neutral to suddenly engaging with political trends? (Much like Trump’s favoured “tech bros” – “Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, Bezos and Musk”). 

Secondly, we expect content from Trump’s Administration will be amplified, especially the loud and controversial content. If this is the case, we may witness the rise of influencer marketing on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. Additionally, will businesses realise they can say more now that there are fewer regulations? Can influencer marketing be leveraged to reach key business objectives?

And let’s not forget the grey areas here. While illegal content will obviously be removed, there is every possibility that advertorial content could be affected by this era of ‘free speech.’ Will advertising standards slip? What kind of paid content will infiltrate our timelines and therefore influence our minds? Could companies use this as an opportunity to engage with new pools of potential leads and customers? 

It is safe to say businesses and indeed NGOs and charities need to be always looking for new opportunities to engage, no matter how politics are shaping digital cultures. But high engagement rates are worthless if a piece of content is factually inaccurate. Companies have a responsibility to provide their audiences with objective, and fact-based information. Much like journalists, communication professionals must ensure that the information shared with the public is truthful to prevent the spread of misinformation. For instance, issuing a public statement supported by concrete evidence demonstrates integrity. Over time, this approach builds trust, and businesses that prioritise such transparency will earn the confidence of their audiences. 

The US is about to witness huge cultural, economic and political shifts and social media is the vehicle being driven by tech billionaires to make a lot of this happen. It’s a US-centric mission at this stage, but remember social media brings the whole world closer together. If Meta in the EU looks considerably different to Meta in the US, companies and even individuals in the States may need to think of a tactical way to engage with countries that are deemed more ‘censored.’ In other words, the US may need to re-consider its brash approach to innovation and see the benefits of cooperation and compromise with their international relations (though maybe this is just my pipe dream!) Ultimately though, this is a decision that has been made in the United States and its up to the powerhouses (the tech entrepreneurs and the US Government) to monitor how the relaxation of regulation will happen and what direction this will take society and business in the United States. 

The US has entered an era of social media where truth is the commodity and it’s getting rapidly steeper in cost. Guardians of truth who once monitored platforms like Facebook and Instagram have been pushed back and this has huge ramifications on vulnerable users and how businesses will choose to compete with ever-growing, ever-political social content. 

Let’s watch this space…

[Or “A ‘love letter’ to UK energy policy’ as my colleague described it!]

What does Energy Policy matter?

Energy policy, like health policy, can be a matter of life and death. 

The UK has relatively cold winters.  The National Pensioners Convention (NPC) has published findings stating cold homes and fuel poverty contribute significantly to excess winter deaths in the UK.  During the winter of 2022/23, the NPC estimate 4,950 excess winter deaths were linked to living in cold homes.  In the second half of the 20^th century the UK’s energy policy centred around large fossil fuel (coal, gas and oil) powered power stations providing electricity to UK homes through the National Grid. 

There is also a separate gas grid in the UK which supplies many homes with natural gas for heating and cooking.  Some rural properties are not on the gas grid and have oil fired boilers and stoves. This domestic oil is delivered by tankers and stored in oil tanks outside the property.  As of 2021, the House of Commons Library estimate 4.4 million households in Great Britain were not connected to the gas grid. This represents about 15.1% of domestic properties. 

Energy regulator, Ofgem, estimates between 75,000 and 100,000 homes are not connected to the National [electricity] Grid in the UK.  Such properties often rely on private sources of power, such as diesel generators and / or renewable energy systems like solar panels and wind turbines.

Winter Woes in Weardale

In rural County Durham where I now live, Weardale exemplifies the human cost of energy vulnerabilities. Harsh winters, frequent power outages, and fuel poverty exacerbate the struggles of a proud but aging population. With outdated infrastructure and limited resilience, communities face health risks, economic strain and social isolation.

These challenges highlight the intersection of geographic isolation, aging infrastructure and extreme weather - issues that demand both immediate and long-term solutions.  So how did we get here?

A short note about me

I am a director at specialist net zero comms consultancy Impact and Influence. I am fascinated by energy policy, the journey to net-zero and the infrastructure renewal it entails.  As such I am very interested in the intersection between planning, funding and net zero.

Growing up in the Doncaster in the heart of the South Yorkshire coalfield in the 1970s and 1980s, I have keenly followed the energy debate in the UK ever since the 1984 miners’ strike. 

A potted history of UK energy policy

“Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it,” writer and philosopher George Santayana

The evolution of UK energy policy in the last hundred years, from the world’s first national electricity grid in the 1930s, to the recent ambitious and legally binding goal of achieving net-zero by 2050 is a story of technological advances and challenges to overcome.

Since the advent and deployment of electricity to power (ie cook, heat and light) homes and industry, and awareness of the greenhouse effect in the latter half of the 20th century, energy policy around the world, attempts to solve the “energy trilemma” at any given moment or era. 

The energy trilemma is the challenge of balancing energy security, energy cost / price, and environmental sustainability.

1. Energy Security means ensuring a reliable and uninterrupted supply of energy. Protecting energy infrastructure from disruptions, diversifying energy sources, and maintaining sufficient reserves.

2. Energy cost and prices refers to the challenge for the UK’s energy system of needing to provide affordable and accessible energy across all parts of society. Addressing energy poverty and ensuring that energy costs are manageable for consumers.

3. Environmental Sustainability is the challenge of minimising the environmental impact of energy production and indeed consumption. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy sources and implementing energy-efficient, ideally net zero, or event net positive practices.

Balancing these three interconnected but sometimes opposing challenges is tricky politically and in policy terms.  It can be like a game of “whack a mole” for energy policy makers, regulators, producers and consumers: improvements in one area can sometimes lead to trade-offs in another. For example, increasing energy security by using more fossil fuels on cold still days leads to increases emissions which compromises environmental sustainability.

The World Energy Council's World Energy Trilemma Index is a tool used by energy stakeholders across the world to assess and compare how well countries manage these competing demands.

The UK context

“[An] island made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish”.  Aneurin Bevan

The UK's energy story began with coal as its backbone. Post-World War II, deep coal mines flourished, employing thousands. The 1984 miners' strike marked a turning point, with successive pit closures altering the landscape of British energy production. By the late 20th century, power stations like Drax and Ferrybridge symbolised the era of large-scale fossil fuel reliance and indeed clustering around the key UK coalfields.

Key milestones

Key landmarks in UK energy policy and the energy system over the last 100 years include:

• 1926: Establishment of the Central Electricity Board (CEB) and the creation of the National Grid to standardize and distribute electricity across the UK.

• 1948: Post World War II nationalisation of the electricity industry, creating the British Electricity Authority (later the Central Electricity Generating Board).

• 1956: Opening of the world's first commercial nuclear power station at Calder Hall.

• 1972 Miners' Strike: This strike began on January 9, 1972, and lasted until February 28, 1972. It was a major dispute over pay between the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and the Conservative government led by Edward Heath. The strike resulted in a pay increase for miners and was marked by significant events such as the Battle of Saltley Gate.

• 1973: The oil crisis leads to the UK government emphasizing energy conservation and the development of North Sea oil and gas resources.

• 1974 Miners' Strike: Another major strike occurred in 1974, starting in February. This strike was also driven by demands for higher wages and better working conditions. It led to the implementation of the Three-Day Week by the government to conserve electricity, as coal supplies were severely restricted. The strike contributed to the downfall of Edward Heath's government and the subsequent election of a Labour government under Harold Wilson.

• 1980s: Privatisation of the energy sector under Prime Minister Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher MP, including the sale of British Gas and the breakup of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

• 1984: The 1984-1985 miners' strike in the UK was one of the most significant industrial disputes in British history. The strike ended without achieving its goals. The Government proceeded with the planned pit closures, leading to a significant reduction in the coal industry and a decline in union influence.

• 1990: Introduction of the Electricity Act, which restructured the electricity industry and established a competitive market.

• 1998: Introduction of the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations by the Labour government, which was lifted in 2000.

• 2008: The Climate Change Act is passed, committing the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

• 2013: The Energy Act introduces the Electricity Market Reform (EMR) to encourage investment in low-carbon electricity generation.

• 2019: The UK becomes the first major economy to pass a law to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

• 2020: The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution is announced, outlining the government's strategy for a green recovery and setting ambitious targets for offshore wind, hydrogen, and electric vehicles.

• 2021: The UK hosts the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, reaffirming its commitment to tackling climate change and promoting global cooperation.

• 2024: The Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain is published, setting out the government's strategic priorities for energy policy.

In my lifetime the 1984 Miners’ Strike and the moratorium on gas fired power stations loom large in the memory.  The 84 Miners’ Strike is perhaps best addressed in a separate blog but it is worth re-capping the moratorium (and I worked on it and not just live through as I did the ‘84 strike):

Labour’s temporary ban on gas fired power stations in the late 1990s

In 1998, the then UK Labour Government, introduced a moratorium, or temporary halt, on the construction of new gas-fired power stations. The announcement was made by Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, who was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the President of the Board of Trade at the time. 

This decision was part of a broader energy policy aimed at addressing concerns about the over-reliance on natural gas for electricity generation, that is halt the “dash for gas”, and the potential impacts on energy security as large amounts of gas was imported from Russia and elsewhere. 

It was a controversial move, with debates around its impact on energy prices, security and the transition to net zero and renewables.  A number of energy companies who were developing gas fired power stations, who saw these plans frozen by Government decree, were furious. 

The moratorium was aimed at encouraging a more balanced mix of energy sources, including coal and nuclear power, to ensure a more secure (home grown), self-sufficient and diverse energy supply. The policy also sought to address environmental concerns and promote the development of renewable energy as well as give the UK coal industry time to develop Carbon Capture and Storage and modernise to compete with gas on price. 

The moratorium was intended to last for five years it was lifted after two years in 2000.  Wholesale prices for gas v coal v nuclear v renewables being what they were – the “dash for gas” resumed quickly after that. 

Since then Governments of all colours have tried to solve the energy trilemma by supporting and subsidising renewable energy so it can compete on price with fossil fuels. 

Labour’s current “run to renewables”

The current Labour Government, led by Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, has pledged to “double onshore wind, triple onshore solar, and quadruple offshore wind”. 

The National Grid remains a hurdle to more renewable deployment

Sir Keir, at the 2023 Labour Conference, summarised the issue with delays in connecting renewable assets to the Grid: “[We need] a new effort to re-wire Britain.” The National Grid must evolve to meet the needs of a sustainable future

Why?  The National Grid - A creaking network

The UK’s National [electricity] Grid, was the world’s first integrated national electricity grid, opened in 1935. It heralded a new era of centralised power distribution. However, designed for the needs of the 20th century, it now faces unprecedented demands. As of the 2020s, over 1,000 renewable energy projects worth £200 billion are in the queue for connection. The delays, sometimes spanning over a decade or more, threaten the UK’s goal of producing carbon-free electricity by 2035.  One renewable developer I was talking to at the end of last year said that the Grid had quoted them 2038 to get their onshore wind farms they currently have going through planning connected!  This will be eight years after the 2030 deadline when the UK is supposed to produce 100% of electricity from renewable energy. 

As the World Economic Forum put it its pre 2025 Davos AGM article on 14 January 2025: “In the United Kingdom, the National Grid is carrying out the Great Grid Update. This is the largest investment in the UK grid since the 1960s. It will see five times more investment in transmission infrastructure in the next six years than has been delivered in the past three decades. It is also reforming the grid connections process to give priority to projects that are ready to be built, rather than those waiting in the queue, with changes due to be implemented in early 2025.  Currently, commercial and residential developments trying to secure a grid connection can face wait times of up to 15 years; as a result, development projects are being paused indefinitely or significantly delayed because of grid constraints.”

The Energy Mix: January 2025

And yet, despite the Grid throwing up significant hurdles, the UK energy system has made great strides towards net zero. 

On a cold winter evening on Sunday 12 January 2025, with little wind, the UK’s energy mix was:

• 52% gas
• 0% coal (but some on standby to be ready to be switched on if demand surges)
• 0% oil
• 30% renewables (inc solar / PV; onshore and offshore wind and hydroelectricity)
• 16% from nuclear and biomass
• 1% from the interconnectors – electricity cables under the sea linking the UK with Belgium; Denmark; France; Ireland; Netherlands and Norway
• 1% storage including pumped storage and battery storage

These figures offer a snapshot on the UK’s journey to next zero. Renewable energy contributes significantly, but reliance on fossils fuels remains. This duality reflects the progress made and the hurdles yet to be overcome.

Towards Net-Zero: A Vision for 2050

The UK’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 is ambitious but eminently doable. Key to this journey is addressing grid infrastructure, accelerating renewable project connections and ensuring equitable access to energy across urban and rural communities. Innovations in floating wind, solar power and sustainable heating methods will be crucial.

Conclusion: Energy is about people

From its coal-powered beginnings to its renewable aspirations, the UK's energy journey is a testament to change and adaptation. Achieving net-zero by 2050 will require bold reforms, technological innovation and a commitment to leaving no community behind.

Energy policy is more than strategy – it’s about the lives it impacts and the future it shapes.

Chris Kelsey