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…