Meta is ditching moderation and indulging in free speech.
The tech company’s founder Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to “dramatically reduce censorship” across its three social media platforms, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, starting in the United States. Instead of using a dedicated fact-checking team, Meta will implement X’s Community Notes system, allowing users to moderate posts collectively.
Community Notes is a user-centred system, where eligible contributors leave contextual notes to any posts they find potentially misleading. When posts are reviewed by a certain number of different viewpoints, their notes become public to the rest of users.
Zuckerberg cites the political bias of fact-checkers as the main reason for removing them, crediting them for destroying the trust of their users for becoming tools of censorship. Yet, this reasoning falls short, as fact-checkers rely only on facts, not bias. Posts espousing anything less than facts would be considered a lie.
With Donald Trump’s nearing return to the White House on Jan. 20, it’s clear Meta’s motivations to maximize free speech aren’t really in service of the platform’s users, but in preparation for upcoming administrative changes and the people they’ll ultimately serve.
Meta isn’t the only company to drastically transform its policies in light of Trump’s presidency; we’re amidst a greater trend of corporations bending to the will of the former President’s conservative values to maintain favourable relations with him and his policies.
This connection signals the growing relationship between tech giants and political leaders—one we’ve already seen with Elon Musk and X. Given their investing potential in political outcomes and regulations, we’re witnessing the sheer power tech companies have at their disposal to satisfy the majority, while sacrificing the wellbeing of marginalized groups.
Even the word “censorship” reveals the political undertones behind social media platforms. Stating that eliminating fact-checkers removes censorship, suggests the belief that the opposite—that fact-checkers are a barrier to free speech—is true. Fact-checking, at its core, is a mechanism to broaden the knowledge around a point. Adding nuance to statements isn’t the same as flagging something for not being factual.
When making a change as consequential as removing all discursive guardrails, the impacts of that decision shouldn’t be taken lightly. Seen through Zuckerberg’s eyes, this situation is nothing but a trade-off between granting users unrestricted access to share their experiences, while catching less “bad stuff.” The danger lies in underestimating just how “bad” stuff can get when left for Internet users to moderate.
Harmful content is censored for a reason, so when it becomes permitted, the spread of misinformation and hate speech are inevitable across Meta’s platforms. Existing sentiments toward targeted communities will only inflate into cyberbullying and harassment. Left unchecked, this freedom gives way for dominant ideologies to push minority voices to other channels, turning Facebook and Instagram feeds into extremist echo-chambers.
As demonstrated by social media’s catalyzation of anti-feminist hate speech among young users, it’s evident how rapidly online discourses begin reaping offline effects. Even if users can hold each other accountable through Community Notes, it doesn’t mean they can do so to a degree that’ll ensure everyone’s safety. It’s no longer a matter of what can and can’t be said, but a concern for whether people will ever face repercussions for things they’ll inevitably say.
While countries like Canada and those in the EU and UK, whose online safety acts clash with these changes, have yet to follow in America’s footsteps, the effects will soon permeate beyond the US. Meta’s censorship lift is nothing but a recipe for misinformation, hate speech, and a frightening political landscape that’s already taking shape.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
Censorship, Facebook, Fact-checking, free speech, instagram, Mark Zuckerberg, Meta
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
Vince Green
When I was a young student, I would have felt the same way.
However, getting older and wiser, I realized the importance of things like the USA’s first amendment. In any other situation it quickly becomes apparent that whoever decides what is acceptable speech essentially receives all control. This article unfortunately operates a bit naively under the axiom “fact-checkers rely only on facts, not bias” – it assumes they will do their job perfectly, and relinquishes all control to an ambiguous authority. That may be nice when you agree with the authority – but what happens when you don’t?
Perhaps it is better to critically educate the people, and let them choose their own way in the free market of ideas, instead of trying another authoritarian push to control the conversation.