Meta‘s recent decision to eliminate fact-checking for posts on its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, has critically important implications for its German partners, particularly the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa). Since joining the fact-checking program in 2019, dpa has conducted over 8,000 fact checks, employing a dedicated team of around 30 professionals. This initiative, which began in 2016 with partners like the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, aimed to address growing public concerns about misinformation on social media. Despite the changes, dpa remains committed to its partnership with Meta, continuing to offer fact-checking services not only in Germany but also in several other European countries.Correctiv, a prominent fact-checking institution in Germany, has confirmed that its partnership with Meta will continue until the end of 2025. While the exact number of fact-checks conducted for Meta remains undisclosed, the collaboration is part of a broader effort to combat misinformation. Along with this partnership, Correctiv is launching an independent initiative called “faktenforum” to educate the public about disinformation, free from the influence of major platforms like Meta, X, or TikTok. As the European Union enforces the Digital Services Act, Meta and other tech giants are required to demonstrate their commitment to tackling false information, with potential repercussions from the EU Commission if they fail to comply.Meta Platforms, Inc. is set to overhaul its content moderation strategy by discontinuing its third-party fact-checking program, a move announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg. This shift will replace traditional fact-checking with a community-driven approach, allowing users to flag misleading information, similar to the model used by X (formerly twitter). Critics, including the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), have expressed concerns over this decision, arguing that it equates fact-checking with censorship and undermines the integrity of information shared on the platform. As Meta embraces a more open policy on free expression, the implications for content accuracy and user trust remain to be seen [1[1[1[1][2[2[2[2][3[3[3[3].
Q&A with M.Schmidt, Misinformation Expert, on Meta’s Elimination of Fact-Checking
Time.news Editor (T.): Welcome, M. Schmidt.Let’s dive into Meta’s recent decision to eliminate its third-party fact-checking program across Facebook and Instagram. What led to this drastic change?
M. Schmidt (M.S.): Thank you for having me. Meta’s move towards scrapping its established fact-checking system, wich has been in place as 2016, reflects a broader shift that prioritizes user-generated content and engagement over professional oversight.They claim this aligns with a commitment to free expression. Though, this poses significant risks in combating misinformation, especially for platforms that hold such influence worldwide.
T.: You mentioned that this decision poses risks for combating misinformation. Can you elaborate on that, especially regarding Meta’s partners like Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)?
M.S.: Certainly. Since joining Meta’s fact-checking program in 2019, dpa has conducted over 8,000 fact checks with a dedicated team of around 30 professionals. The decision to move to a community-driven model means that misinformation could potentially proliferate unchecked. While dpa has expressed its commitment to continue offering fact-checking services in Germany and Europe, the effectiveness of these efforts may diminish without support from a structured fact-checking system. This uncertainty raises concerns about public trust in the data shared on social media.
T.: Correctiv is another key player in this context. How is their relationship with Meta evolving, and what initiative are they launching?
M.S.: Correctiv’s partnership with Meta will continue until the end of 2025,which is reassuring for their ongoing fight against misinformation. However, they are also launching ”faktenforum,” an independent initiative aimed at educating the public about disinformation outside the influence of major platforms like Meta and X. This highlights a critical response to the need for reliable information sources amidst platform changes that reduce accountability.
T.: How does the Digital Services Act from the European Union play into this situation?
M.S.: The Digital Services act compels tech giants to take responsibility for the content shared on their platforms. If they fail to adequately address misinformation and protect users, they risk severe repercussions from the EU Commission. Meta’s new community-driven model has raised eyebrows, as critics argue it could lead to an increase in misinformation, potentially putting them at odds with these regulatory requirements.
T.: There’s criticism from organizations like the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN). What are their main concerns?
M.S.: EFCSN has voiced strong opposition to Meta’s shift, asserting that equating fact-checking with censorship undermines the integrity of the information shared on the platform. Their concern is that the community-driven model may prioritize sensationalism over accuracy, potentially leading to a barrage of unchecked claims that could erode user trust and the quality of discourse on these platforms.
T.: Lastly, what practical advice can you give to users navigating misinformation on social media in light of these changes?
M.S.: users should be more discerning than ever. It’s crucial to verify information thru trusted sources before sharing it. Utilizing independent fact-checking initiatives like dpa and Correctiv can help users navigate the challenges of misinformation.Additionally, being aware of the signs of disinformation and engaging critically with content can empower users to become more informed consumers of information.
T.: Thank you, M. Schmidt, for your insights on this crucial topic. Your expertise sheds light on the impacts of Meta’s decision and the ongoing fight against misinformation.