Mark Zuckerberg is scrapping fact checks: a look at the pros and cons

    For a long time, Mark Zuckerberg was of the opinion that...Above all, it should be a neutral place for the exchange of ideas and information - a kind of modern marketplace of opinions where users can form their own opinion. He repeatedly emphasized: "Internet platforms should not be guardians of the truth." Content on Facebook andShould no longer be checked for truth by professional fact checkers in the USA.People who have always been against it saw it as a suppression of freedom of expression. But supporters of fact checking now fear an increase in fake news that will not be corrected.In Germany he can't switch off fact checking so quickly.What would be the advantages and disadvantages of fact checking?

    The end of fact checks: free rein for fake news?

    The social networks Instagram and Facebook, which become tech giantsbelong, are facing a turning point: fact checks should be abolished and the previous restrictions on controversial topics such as migration andbe relaxed. Experts view the planned changes with great concern. What exactly makes Zuckerberg's announcement so worrying and is it a gateway for fake news?

    Under “Providers”InstagramActivate to see content

    The benefits of fact checking

    Instead of checking by fact checkers, Meta - similar to platform X (formerly) – a system called “Community Notes” will be introduced, initially in the USA. In this system, users could add additional context to a post, photo or video to clarify or supplement the information. How well this works remains to be seen. The benefits of fact checking are clear.

    • Combating disinformation:
      Fact checks help identify and correct false information, which can reduce the spread of disinformation.
    • Promoting media literacy:
      They encourage users to question sources and critically engage with information.
    • Building trust:
      Platforms that rely on fact-checking often gain the trust of their users because they demonstrate responsibility and integrity.
    • Correction of public discourse:
      By flagging incorrect content, fact checks create the basis for more informed discussions.
    • Supporting democratic processes:
      Particularly in sensitive phases such as elections, fact checks can prevent manipulative misinformation from causing great damage.

    The disadvantages of fact checking

    Now that the benefits are clear, there seem to be almost no real downsides to fact checking. But if you look closely, there are good reasons against fact checking.

    • Subjectivity and bias:
      The topics and sources checked may be influenced by the personal or political preferences of the fact-checkers (people).
    • Restriction of freedom of expression:
      For some users, fact checks seem like censorship, especially when it comes to controversial or polarizing content. A fundamental stance “against” something quickly emerges.
    • Loss of trust due to mistakes:
      If fact checks are done incorrectly or biased, they canof users on the platform.
    • Delaying the dissemination of correct information:
      The fact-checking process often takes longer than quickly disseminating content, which can mean that false information has already gone viral before it is corrected. It's like in the print business: people memorize the headline and ignore the correction, which is usually only printed days later.
    • Economic pressure:
      Fact checks are costly and tie up resources. Platforms like Meta could do without them for economic reasons in order to promote the distribution of controversial but click-heavy content.
    • Resistance among users:
      Marking posts as “false” can arouse suspicion among users and drive them deeper into their own bubble, where they only consume like-minded views.

    Meta cannot easily change the rules for fact checks in Germany

    Mark Zuckerberg's announcement to abolish fact checks is met with resistance in Europe as the EU enforces strict requirements for platforms with the Digital Services Act (DSA). Companies like Meta are obliged to take active action against disinformation and hate speech. In Germany, Meta cannot simply relax content controls without violating EU rules. The DSA requires mechanisms to be provided for moderation and to curb false news - violations of which can result in high penalties of up to 6 percent of global annual turnover. Even Meta cannot constantly pay billions in fines. The planned changes therefore face significant legal hurdles in Europe.

    Fight against fake news: Europe relies on Trusted Fahner

    However, the EU law still contains an important regulation: In each member state, the central platform supervisory authority can certify trustworthy whistleblowers, so-called trusted flaggers. Trusted flaggers are trusted organizations or individuals recognized by the authorities of a country or the EU to check and report content on digital platforms that violates applicable law. These actors are considered particularly knowledgeable and reliable and can, for example, be fact-checking organizations or non-profit institutions that work to combat disinformation. In Germany, this supervision is the responsibility of the Federal Network Agency, which is allowed to recognize independent organizations. When these organizations then report content that violates the law, a platform like Meta is obliged to investigate these reports “as a priority.”