Meta ends collaboration with fact checkers. 'A bolt from the blue' say experts
Meta stops fact-checking in the US. We talked about it with fact-checking experts and with the editor-in-chief of ANP.
Published on January 17, 2025
Everything new is wildly interesting! That's the motto of our DATA+ expert, Elcke Vels. She writes stories about AI and how it affects our society, has a series on cyber security, and interviews Dutch innovation maestros. In her “What if...” column, she also explores intriguing scenarios that deviate from the status quo.
Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, recently announced that the company is ending its collaboration with third-party fact-checkers in the United States. It would curtail freedom of speech. “An incredibly damaging claim,” said fact checker expert Alexander Pleijter.
Everyone knows by now: you shouldn't believe everything that comes along on social media. In America, fake news is spread in abundance during election periods. But here in the Netherlands, too, one has to be careful. Last November and December, reports circulated on Facebook about an alleged desire by Muslims in the Netherlands to create dog-free zones in parks. That news was eventually debunked by the DPA, one of the foreign news agencies that does the fact-checking work for Facebook.
Such an example shows how important fact-checking is. According to Zuckerberg, however, outside organizations that check facts on social media do more harm than good. It would violate the principle of freedom of speech. With that, he makes a move toward Trump just before the former president's inauguration.
Meta says it will work with so-called community notes, similar to how X handles it. Approved contributors post a note to content deemed inaccurate or misleading to provide more context.
Truth versus opinions
Meta still collaborates with fact-checkers in Europe. The EU has passed a law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), that requires large platforms like Meta to protect users from things like fake news, terrorist material, and hate speech. Yet experts say stopping fact-checking in the U.S. is a step in the wrong direction.
Toni van der Meer, senior lecturer in communication studies at the University of Amsterdam: “I was initially shocked by this. Fact-checking is not a panacea, but it remains an important tool in a democratic society.” Very enthusiastic about the community note system, he is not. “Fact-check organizations (in Europe, for example, DPA Faktencheck (Germany), Maldita.es (Spain) and Pagella Politica (Italy). ed.) use professional standards that you won't find in the community. Moreover, the new system depends very much on who is part of the community. For example, a “loud minority ” may become involved in providing message with notes. Such groups hold more extreme and polarizing views, which can greatly limit the quality of these notes.”
'Fact-checkers have the expertise'
Alexander Pleijter, associate professor for the Journalism & New Media program at Leiden University, is also unhappy with Meta's decision. He is one of the founders of Niewscheckers: a fact-checking project of the university. “We started in 2007. We also participated in the 2017 Facebook fact-checking program for a year.”
Meta's news came as a bolt from the blue for Pleijter. Community notes an sich are often not the problem, according to Pleijter. But there is another issue. “A large number of notes remain invisible because participants cannot agree. This happens especially when political beliefs factor into decision-making. For example, when a community note corrects Donald Trump, many of his supporters vote against it, even though they acknowledge that the note is factually correct. In fact, research shows that some 90% of the community notes created on X never become visible to the general public.”
It would be great, according to the expert, if community notes could coexist with traditional fact-checkers because that way corrections are made on a much larger scale. But replacing fact-checkers completely is a downright bad idea, he believes. “After all, they have the expertise and experience to verify properly. It's a shame that one approach is now replacing another.”
Whether fact checkers curb freedom of speech? Pleijter absolutely disagrees with that. “I think that claim is very damaging. As a fact checker, you should be reluctant to close accounts or take down posts. But fact-checkers don't just do that. They find out whether something is true or not. Anyone can read that, and then you can draw your own conclusions. That's just a very good service to users.”
EU demands answers from Meta on CrowdTangle shutdown
Meta has until September 6 to respond to the European Commission’s inquiries. The company has stated that it is gathering feedback to improve the Meta Content Library.
The role of ANP
In Europe, we don't have to worry about Meta stopping fact-checkers for the time being. Still, we should always remain critical of what we see passing on social media. Fact-check organizations cannot check everything. And sometimes, it takes a while before a post is flagged.
They are also aware of this at the Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANP). Freek Staps, editor-in-chief of ANP: “Of course, we do not determine what other media do. But our editors are busy all day verifying what is true and what is not.”
Social media have an important advantage. Information spreads there at lightning speed. The ANP, therefore, keeps a close eye on social media channels. “We use algorithms and systems that alert us when something happens. Suppose a bomb explodes in the center of Rotterdam and images appear on social media. For us, that is not yet a reason to publish immediately. It does serve as a signal to investigate further. Then we start calling and verifying. Only when we have established the facts will we make the news.”
Contracts expire
Meta informed fact-checkers that contracts with U.S. news organizations such as USA Today, Reuters Fact Check, AFP and the nonprofit Politifact expire in March.