Meta’s decision to lift content restrictions and replaced its fact-checking program with a system like X’s Community Notes is being heralded by experts as a huge “win” for freedom of expression.
While some critics remain skeptical that the reforms at Meta will lead to substantive changes, MRC Free Speech America vice president Dan Schneider told me Fox News digital that First Amendment advocates should consider the news a victory.
“The changes Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made are systemic and long-lasting, including replacing some of the most radical people in Silicon Valley with people like Joel Kaplan and Kevin Martin in the second and third positions in the company,” Schneider said . “The algorithms are changing. These are huge wins.”
UCLA Chief Data & Artificial Intelligence (AI) Officer Chris Mattmann, Speaking to Fox News Digital, said Zuckerberg should be “applauded” and predicted it would lead to a greater sense of free speech on metaplatforms including Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday that his company would implement a new fact-checking system, similar to Community Notes on Elon Musk’s X. (Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC/Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto/Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
“Without Elon (Musk) buying Twitter, renaming it to Trump (This may not have happened),” he said.
But not everyone was happy with the news. Fact-checking organizations, Liberal media pundits and other critics have scoffed at claims of political bias and suggested that Meta had abandoned its content moderation responsibilities. The New York Times even highlighted fact-checkers who took issue with Meta’s claim.
“Trust Signals: Brand Building in a Post-Truth World,” author Scott Baradell equated Meta’s decision to a referee being taken off the field and hoping the players would still play fair. He told Fox News Digital that it “raises serious questions about whether Big Tech is backing away from its responsibility to balance free speech with the need for public trust in the digital age.”
“Mark Zuckerberg’s words are high-minded – and he’s certainly right to say there have been problems with bias in third-party fact-checking – but let’s be honest: he’s taking the path of least resistance after a win over Trump,” he said. continued.
Meta’s third-party fact-checking program was introduced after the 2016 election and was used to “manage the content” and disinformation on its platforms, largely due to “political pressure,” executives said, but admitted the system “has gone too far “. far.”
META ISSUES MAJOR CHANGES TO RESTORE FREE SPEECH ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM
Social media apps on an iPhone home screen (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
The lawsuit has since drawn the ire of conservatives who have accused the platform of politically driven censorship, while pointing to several examples of content being silenced. It includes the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, as well as some content about COVID-19, the latest of which Zuckerberg admitted the Biden White House pressured him to do so and that was a mistake.
“We went to independent, third-party fact-checkers,” Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, told Fox News Digital in an interview Tuesday morning. “It has become clear that there is too much political bias in what they fact-check, because they can essentially fact-check everything they see on the platform.”
Mattmann, who was previously CTO of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), said that while there is some credibility in the accusations of left-wing bias and inaccuracies among Meta fact-checkers, his other takeaway was Zuckerberg’s decision to no longer downgrade certain things to get. content that has been flagged or reviewed.
Kaplan told Fox News Digital that Meta would change some of its own content moderation rules, especially ones that they say are “too restrictive and don’t allow for enough discussion about sensitive topics like immigration, transgender issues and gender.”
ELON MUSK APPRECIATES ZUCKERBERG’S MOVEMENT ENDS FACT-CHECKING ON FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM
Meta platforms are displayed on a smartphone screen and the Meta logo appears in the background in Chania, Greece, on August 9, 2024. (Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Kaplan also revealed that Meta currently uses automated systems, which he said make “too many mistakes” and remove content “that doesn’t even violate our standards.”
HeraldPR CEO and President Juda S. Engelmayer told Fox News Digital that the problem with Meta and other major tech platforms, whether it persists or has been resolved, is fact-checkers’ coordination with platforms to engage in censorship, sometimes based on personal opinions and ideological agenda.
‘For example, that should be the debate about whether the coronavirus came from a laboratory in China never censored simply because some found it offensive or politically sensitive,” she said.
“Determining whether the virus was fatal, or whether vaccines and masks were needed, involves scientific debate and evolving data. Silencing opposing or supportive views based on a fact-checker’s perception of what is best for the public undermines free discourse,” Engelmayer continued.
FACEBOOK ADMITS ‘ERROR’ IN CENSORING ICONIC ATTEMPT ON TRUMP PHOTO: ‘THIS WAS AN ERROR’
The New York Times sparked controversy when it highlighted fact-checkers who objected to comments made by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Photo of the New York Times building courtesy of CAMERA | Zuckerberg photo by Kent Nishimura)
Mattmann said that as companies like Meta move to a more “open systems mentality” and “shine a light” on their internal processes, the platforms will get better. Previously, Meta would do that suppress the reach of the content rated poorly by fact-checkers or by those containing specific keywords.
By moving toward an approach similar to Community Notes, Mattmann suggested that platform users will see more content regardless of the “context” provided by fact-checkers, and have a better idea of why rating decisions were made.
The key contrast, Mattmann points out, is that Community Notes is a “globally auditable, transparent” approach, in which readers can see some of the discussion about why a piece was flagged and who flagged it.
“The difference between (independent fact-checking organizations) and Community Notes is that you can look at their profile. The people who have the Community Notes, like you, can look at the provenance and say, OK, this was edited by these people and you can Go check them out on
Still, Mattmann said Meta can improve on X’s approach by offering users even more transparency.
