Is the truth dying on social networks after the capitulation of Meta?

Since Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta’s decision to replace fact-checking with community notes last Monday, Social networks seem on the verge of ushering in a new era in which the truth (if it has ever existed on these platforms) It will perhaps be completely overshadowed by lies. With this controversial decision, the company led by Zuckerberg wishes to once again put freedom of expression in its domains at the forefront.

Under the changes announced by Meta, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads users will no longer be confronted on these platforms with warnings that posts they stumble across on these channels are fake. Instead, Meta will let its own users be the ones who, with the so-called community notes, warn others of the lies that may eventually make their way onto Facebook, Instagram and Threads. The social media giant thus looks in the mirror of X, where it is also the users who ultimately cut off “fake news.”

Zuckerberg confesses that the change in Meta’s content moderation policy will cause the company to put less fire on potentially harmful content on social networks, but that This will simultaneously allow users to post more freely on Facebook, Instagram and Threads without fear of their posts being censored.

Is the truth lying on its deathbed on social media?

Do changes to Meta’s content moderation policy mean that the truth will become virtually non-existent on social media? Not necessarily. It is true that the lie is much louder than the truth, but this does not mean that the second is going to be totally silenced after what many understand as a capitulation on the part of Meta to please Donald Trump and his acolyte Elon Musk.

The truth will perhaps be more to follow from now on on social networks and precisely for this reason the user will have to look at the content they consume on these platforms with much more critical eyes. When it comes to detecting the truth and distinguishing it from a lie (which is often cross-dressed in a very convincing way as the truth), users must pay attention to their instincts and, above all, their emotions. And when their eyes fall on content that translates into a strong emotional response (both negative and positive), they should at least be suspicious of the information they have in front of them.

It is worth noting that, although the “fake news” wears multiple different outfits, their clothing is usually deliberately striking because outrageous (and inaccurate) typically generates many more clicks than objective data.

The user would also do well to distrust those publications that contain information that he specifically wants to be true. “When dealing with misinformation, the most determining factor when it comes to fooling the user is that they really want to believe what they are reading,” says Abbie Richards, an expert in misinformation in statements to The Washington Post.

If the user has doubts when they come across potentially inaccurate information on social networks, You must also resist the temptation to throw yourself into the arms of AI systems directly embedded in Meta and other social networks. (which do not always handle, after all, 100% updated information and do not verify the sources from which they extract information either).

On the other hand, it must be remembered that Long before Meta decided to end fact-checking on its domains, lies ran more or less freely on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, whose verification systems have never been perfect.

From now on, the user must pay more attention to the content they consume on social networks.

An investigation undertaken in 2022 by The Washington Post y ProPublica concluded, for example, that in the weeks preceding the assault on the Capitol in January 2021, Facebook provided shelter for hundreds of thousands of posts that questioned the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s victory at the polls.

This does not mean that the data verification carried out to date in Meta is completely useless, but it is a mistake to consider it as an absolutely insurmountable dam for “fake news.” (as if these had been totally conspicuous by their absence to date on Facebook, Instagram and Threads). It is true, however, that the elimination of “fact-checking” will lead to publications of a much more controversial nature on Meta’s social networks from now on, particularly on topics directly related to gender identity and immigration. .

It is also important that the user learns to distrust algorithmic “feeds” (which show them content related to their past activity) and proceed to make their own list of trusted accounts.

Since social networks are expected to be much more fertile ground for misinformation, It is equally vital that the user takes the trouble to obtain information directly from the media. or on platforms such as Apple News and Google News.

To avoid falling into the trap of misinformation on social networks, The user should also familiarize themselves with consulting “fact-checking” platforms such as Maldita.es, Newtral, FactCheck.org or Check Your Factwho despite Meta’s decision to turn his back on them will continue doing their job and helping people distinguish truth from lies in the turbulent waters of the network of networks.