By CS Krishnamurthy
The recent decision by Meta to abandon its fact-checking program in the United States has sparked a critical dialogue about the role of social media in shaping public discourse. Touted as a step to champion free speech, the move underscores a worrying surrender of responsibility by Big Tech, raising fundamental questions about truth, accountability, and the societal cost of misinformation. At its core, the debate reiterates the inviolable principle: facts are sacred and must remain so.
The argument put forth by Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, combining fact-checking with censorship, misses a vital point: facts are immutable and form the basis of meaningful discourse. Fact-checking does not stifle free speech; rather, it serves to uphold it by safeguarding against the proliferation of misinformation and malice. Without such mechanisms, unverified and often dangerous claims -ranging from vaccine myths to inflammatory political rhetoric- can spiral rampant, jeopardising public welfare and societal cohesion.
The harm caused by unrestrained disinformation is not hypothetical. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated how falsehoods could delay vaccination efforts and amplify public mistrust. Similarly, the unchecked dissemination of hate speech has incited violence in various regions. Fact-checking acts as the first line of defence, identifying and neutralising these threats, regardless of whether they stem from ignorance or deliberate malice.
Instead of fact-checking, Meta has adopted a “community notes” system, where users themselves can flag misleading content. This approach, similar to what X (formerly Twitter) does, relies on people’s opinions to decide what is true or false. While this might sound democratic, it can easily be misused by groups pushing their own agendas.
We’ve already seen how this can go wrong. After Elon Musk took over X, reports showed a rise in hateful and abusive content. Even though X banned many accounts for breaking rules, the lack of strong moderation allowed harmful content to spread. This example shows that leaving responsibility to users can create chaos.
This surrender of responsibility is further compounded by the financial incentives tied to controversial content. Platforms that reward high engagement inadvertently promote sensationalism over truth. By aligning with populist demands for unfettered speech, Meta and X are creating a fertile ground for disinformation, undermining the very fabric of democratic societies.
Institutional media
Unlike social media platforms, traditional news media remains relatively steadfast in its commitment to factual accuracy. They have exacting editorial processes and multiple layers of verification, ensuring that their reporting adheres to journalistic ethics. This foundational principle distinguishes them from social media platforms, which have long resisted being categorised as publishers to evade scrutiny.
The erosion of fact-checking on social media highlights the importance of traditional media. Unlike the transient and often unverified content on social platforms, reputable news outlets provide context, depth, and reliability. Their rigorous standards act as a bulwark against the “post-truth” environment fostered by Big Tech.
Meta’s decision reverberates far beyond U.S. borders. With billions of users worldwide, platforms like Facebook wield immense influence, particularly in nations where social media serves as a primary news source. In regions with weaker regulatory frameworks, the absence of vigorous fact-checking mechanisms could deepen societal rifts and fuel unrest.
In Europe, for instance, stringent regulations on hate speech and misinformation may act as a counterbalance, but they are not a panacea. Governments in Asia and other regions must adopt proactive measures to hold social media platforms accountable. This includes instituting robust legal frameworks that promote transparency and prevent the dissemination of harmful content without stifling genuine free speech.
The challenges of the digital age demand a collective response. Citizens must develop a discerning eye, questioning the credibility of information seen online. Governments should work towards creating regulatory environments that compel tech companies to prioritise truth over profit. Meanwhile, institutional media must continue to focus on accuracy, serving as a guide for people seeking trustworthy information.
Meta’s retreat from fact-checking under the guise of promoting free speech is a wake-up call. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “Truth never damages a cause that is just.” It is incumbent upon societies to uphold this principle in the face of challenges, ensuring that the truth remains unclouded by the fog of falsehoods.
It’s high time for collective action – from citizens, governments, and institutional media alike – to reaffirm the sanctity of facts. Truth, after all, is not a casualty of the digital age but its cornerstone. Without it, our conversations and decisions become meaningless. Protecting facts is not just a duty – it is essential for a fair and informed society.
(The writer is a retired banker and freelance-writer, residing in Bangalore. He recently authored a book “Money does Matter.”)