The decision by Facebook parent company Meta to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes has prompted backlash from users and organisations globally.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the announcement last week, stating fact-checkers have become too politically-biased and destroyed more trust than they created.
The Campaign on Digital Ethics (CODE) has condemned Meta's decision, calling it a “reckless gamble” with free speech, as it creates a free pass to misinformation. CODE is a South African non-profit, civil society organisation dedicated to advocating for a digital world where technology supports and enhances human rights, equity and democratic engagement.
In a statement, CODE says: “Poor content moderation has already fuelled real-world harm, such as election interference (United States in 2016, and Brazil 2022), violence and hate speech (Rohingya genocide in 2016, and violence against the Tigrayan community in Ethiopia in 2021), as well as amplified conspiracies and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“This new move risks triggering an even bigger explosion of misinformation, amplifying societal divisions, and harming vulnerable communities on a global scale.”
CODE believes Meta’s changes, framed disingenuously as a commitment to free expression, represents a retreat from accountability. It states that replacing professional fact-checking with community notes isn’t a solution but a shortcut that prioritises profits and aligns with Trump-era political narratives, sacrificing the safety and integrity of the information ecosystem.
CODE further adds that while Meta argues its content moderation systems have led to overreach, dismantling safeguards entirely is not the solution.
According to CODE, South Africa's complex landscape of historical inequalities, cultural nuances and political tensions makes it a precarious environment for unregulated online discourse. Without professional fact-checking oversight, issues like immigration, land reform and election integrity are ripe for manipulation and political opportunism, leaving public discourse open to exploitation, it comments.
“By removing safeguards like professional fact-checking and replacing them with flawed systems, Meta is not democratising truth − it is weaponising misinformation,” says Kavisha Pillay, executive director of CODE.
“Tech oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg hold immense power over what we see and share, but avoid the responsibilities that come with it. If left unchecked, this growing techno-feudal order risks deepening inequality, furthering polarisation and undermining global democracy.”
CODE calls on the South African government to develop robust and progressive regulatory frameworks, akin to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, to hold tech companies accountable for the content they host and amplify.
It also calls for a nationwide digital literacy campaign to be implemented to empower the public to responsibly navigate the digital landscape.
The Ateneo Human Rights Centre (AHRC), a university-based institution engaged in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines, also opposes Meta's decision, saying it undermines accountability for those who exploit the platform to proliferate false information and disinformation.
AHRC adds that fact-checking mechanisms in social media platforms like Meta have become even more relevant in an age when the world highly relies on artificial intelligence-generated content.
It comments that even though the changes in Meta’s policy are primarily effective in the US, the potential adverse effects on the Philippines digital environment cannot be ignored, especially considering the upcoming elections.
“AHRC urges everyone, especially Meta users, to continue being vigilant online, especially in fighting misinformation and disinformation.”
Volker Türk, United Nations high commissioner for human rights, shared his views on LinkedIn: “When we call efforts to create safe online spaces ‘censorship’, we ignore the fact that unregulated space means some people are silenced – in particular those whose voices are often marginalised. At the same time, allowing hatred online limits free expression and may result in real world harms.”
Share