New Update
/bmi/media/media_files/2024/11/19/tC3REC1KRSOkJuWRERrp.jpg)
00:00
/ 00:00
0
By clicking the button, I accept the Terms of Use of the service and its Privacy Policy, as well as consent to the processing of personal data.
Don’t have an account? Signup
New Delhi: Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has decided to continue employing third-party fact-checkers outside the United States, at least for the time being, according to Nicola Mendelsohn, Meta’s head of global business.
This announcement comes in the wake of Meta's recent decision to phase out fact-checking in the US, opting instead for a community-driven "notes" system similar to that used by X (formerly Twitter).
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mendelsohn clarified Meta’s strategy, stating, "We'll see how that goes as we move it out over the year. So nothing changing in the rest of the world at the moment, we are still working with those fact-checkers around the world."
The decision to stick with third-party fact-checkers outside the US for now is influenced by the complexities of international law and varying regulatory environments. For example, the European Union's Digital Services Act imposes stringent requirements on platforms regarding deceptive content and misinformation, which could complicate a similar transition in Europe. The EU's regulations include significant fines for non-compliance, making the use of fact-checkers a prudent strategy for compliance in that region.
Meta's move to a community notes system in the US has been met with mixed reactions. Critics argue that it might lead to an increase in misinformation due to the potential for bias or lack of expertise among users contributing notes. However, proponents, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, argue that this approach will foster a more open environment for free speech, reducing what they perceive as censorship. Zuckerberg has described fact-checking as having been "too politically biased" and having "destroyed more trust than they've created," especially in the American context.
Internationally, the retention of fact-checkers might also be a response to feedback from various countries where misinformation can lead to real-world harm.