Meta has announced sweeping changes to its content moderation policies, scaling back on enforcement and replacing fact-checking with a user-driven system called ‘Community Notes’. These shifts will ultimately lead to an explosion of false information on Meta’s platforms - Facebook, Instagram, and Threads - who have a combined audience of three billion people, globally.
⚠️ Why it matters
With billions of users, Meta’s platforms shape global discourse. Poor content moderation has already fueled real-world harm such as election interference (United States in 2016, and Brazil 2022), violence and hate speech (Rohingya genocide in 2016, and violence against the Tigrayan community in Ethiopia in 2021), as well as amplified conspiracies and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
By scaling back on safeguards, Meta risks exacerbating these above harms - threatening democracy, public safety, and trust worldwide.
🔑 What’s changing
End of independent fact-checking
Meta is scrapping its third-party fact-checking programme and shifting to a system of Community Notes - a similar approach adopted by X (formerly Twitter).
Why it's risky: users, not experts, will determine what context gets added to posts. This could amplify biases and fail to effectively counter disinformation. Numerous studies on X’s Community Notes model have highlighted the flaws in this user-generated system.
Relaxed moderation rules
Meta will rely less on automated systems to remove harmful content. On less serious rule violations, it will only act if users report it.
The danger: harmful content could remain online longer, risking the spread of falsehoods and inflammatory rhetoric.
Increase of political content
Meta will increase political and civic content into feeds, tailoring it to user engagement.
Why it's concerning: personalised algorithms often prioritise sensational or divisive content, which could deepen polarisation.
Transparency claims
Meta promises expanded reporting on enforcement mistakes but offers limited detail on how it will address systemic issues.
Reality check: transparency without accountability risks becoming lip service.
💡 What we can expect
Without robust fact-checking, viral falsehoods will spread unchecked
Vulnerable groups will face increased harassment and harmful speech as moderation rules are relaxed.
Algorithm-driven content recommendations risk amplifying divisive narratives.
</> CODE’s position
Meta’s rollback of content moderation policies is deeply troubling, as it reflects the unchecked power of a tech oligarchy where decisions by a few billionaires, like Mark Zuckerberg, have global consequences.
By reducing safeguards against harmful content, Meta is prioritising engagement metrics and advertising revenue over the well-being of its three billion users. We have seen how divisive and sensational content drives clicks, even when it fuels hate speech, disinformation, and violence.
Zuckerberg’s rhetoric about free expression appears to cater to the political interests of Donald Trump and the far-right, signaling a willingness to bend to pressure rather than uphold safety and truth.
🚨 What's needed
South Africa should introduce progressive legislation akin to the EU’s Digital Services Act to protect its citizens from digital harms and hold tech platforms accountable. Such laws should mandate transparent content moderation, swift action against illegal content, and robust user rights, including effective appeal processes. Independent oversight bodies must also be established to ensure platforms comply with local laws.
Nation-wide digital literacy campaigns are essential to empower citizens to navigate the digital landscape responsibly. These initiatives should focus on teaching critical thinking skills in schools, universities, workplaces and community centers, providing multilingual resources, and equipping the public with the necessary skills to navigate the digital landscape responsibly.
Komentarze