{"id":4755,"date":"2025-01-08T10:41:25","date_gmt":"2025-01-08T10:41:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/ka\/?p=4755"},"modified":"2025-01-09T06:54:05","modified_gmt":"2025-01-09T06:54:05","slug":"%e1%83%a4%e1%83%90%e1%83%a5%e1%83%a2%e1%83%94%e1%83%91%e1%83%98%e1%83%a1-%e1%83%92%e1%83%90%e1%83%93%e1%83%90%e1%83%9b%e1%83%9d%e1%83%ac%e1%83%9b%e1%83%94%e1%83%91%e1%83%98%e1%83%a1-%e1%83%94","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/2025\/01\/08\/%e1%83%a4%e1%83%90%e1%83%a5%e1%83%a2%e1%83%94%e1%83%91%e1%83%98%e1%83%a1-%e1%83%92%e1%83%90%e1%83%93%e1%83%90%e1%83%9b%e1%83%9d%e1%83%ac%e1%83%9b%e1%83%94%e1%83%91%e1%83%98%e1%83%a1-%e1%83%94\/","title":{"rendered":"EFCSN disappointed by end to Meta\u2019s Third Party Fact-Checking Program in the US; Condemns statements linking fact-checking to censorship"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The EFCSN strongly condemns Meta\u2019s CEO\u2019s statements linking fact-checking with censorship<\/li>\n<li>Platforms retracting\u00a0 from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows for election interference<\/li>\n<li>The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation on VLOPs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>7 January 2025 \u2013 The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) is\u00a0<strong>disappointed by\u00a0 Meta\u2019s decision to end its Third Party Fact-Checking Program<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cstarting in the United States\u201d and\u00a0<strong>strongly condemns its CEO\u2019s statements linking fact-checking with censorship<\/strong>. \u201cThis seems more\u00a0<strong>a politically motivated move<\/strong>\u00a0made in the context of the incoming administration of Donald Trump in the United States than an evidence-based decision\u201d, says Clara Jim\u00e9nez Cruz, Chair of the EFCSN. The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation on Very Large Online Platforms.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Fact-checking is not censorship<\/strong>, far from that,\u00a0<strong>fact-checking adds speech\u00a0<\/strong>to public debates,<strong>\u00a0it provides context and facts for every citizen<\/strong>\u00a0to make up their own mind. Fact-checking has been proven to be effective in countering misinformation time and again. Equating fact-checking with censorship is a false and malicious claim. Fact-checkers do not \u2018censor\u2019 anyone. Our members investigate and publish the evidence of claims potentially being false. It has always been Meta\u2019s decision what to do with the content fact-checkers label, not ours.<\/p>\n<p>The EFCSN takes issue with the characterisation of fact-checkers and journalists by Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, in his announcement. In the justification for ending the program, Zuckerberg says, \u201cFact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they\u2019ve created.\u201d This is patently false.<strong>\u00a0Fact-checkers are held to the highest journalistic standards<\/strong>\u00a0of non-biased reporting, transparency, integrity and accountability, with organisations like the EFCSN upholding these standards through an independently conducted audit. Linking fact-checking with censorship is especially harmful as\u00a0<strong>such false claims are already one of the driving forces behind harassment and attacks on fact-checkers.\u00a0<\/strong>Furthering these claims can only exacerbate an already dire issue affecting fact-checkers across the world.<\/p>\n<p>With several European countries heading to the polls in 2025,\u00a0<strong>platforms retracting from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows and potentially even invites election interference<\/strong>, especially from foreign actors. The EU in particular must stand strong in the enforcement of its own laws, even in the face of pressure from other countries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What the facts (and Meta) say on the impact of the Third Party Fact-checking program<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the announcement, Meta also equated the system of labelling fact-checked disinformation with censorship, stating\u00a0 \u201cA program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.\u201d This is actually the opposite of the functioning of a labeling system.\u00a0<strong>Labels on misinformation empower users to make informed decisions<\/strong>\u00a0themselves about which content to interact with and share. In fact, just last year, in the lead up to the EU\u2019s 2024 Parliament Elections, Meta\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/about.fb.com\/news\/2024\/02\/how-meta-is-preparing-for-the-eus-2024-parliament-elections\/\">emphasised the effectiveness of its labeling system<\/a>, stating: \u201cBetween July and December 2023, for example, over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact checking labels. When a fact-checked label is placed on a post,\u00a0<strong>95% of people don\u2019t click through to view it.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/formedia\/blog\/third-party-fact-checking-how-it-works\">Meta has also previously celebrated<\/a>\u00a0its\u00a0<strong>Third Party Fact-Checking Program as successful and beneficial to users<\/strong>, stating, \u201cWe know this program is working and people find value in the warning screens we apply to content after a fact-checking partner has rated it.\u201d In the latest press release, Meta\u2019s CEO alludes to \u201ctoo many mistakes and too much censorship\u201d; but Meta\u2019s own\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/transparency.meta.com\/sr\/dsa-transparency-report-sep2024-facebook\">most recent DSA transparency report<\/a>\u00a0shows that Fact-Checked<strong>\u00a0demoted content by mistake only affected 3,15%<\/strong>\u00a0of the total of complaints of demotion on Facebook.<\/p>\n<p>The Community Notes model proposed as an alternative to the Third Party Fact-Checking Program also has weaknesses. Community Notes could best be used to counter false claims when they are based on proper expertise and fact-checking work. In the context of the 2024 US election,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.poynter.org\/commentary\/2024\/x-community-notes-role-2024-presidential-election\/\">Poynter found that X\u2019s Community Notes<\/a>\u00a0had at best an extremely marginal effect on combating election disinformation. In\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/science.feedback.org\/despite-community-notes-most-content-reviewed-eu-fact-checkers-goes-unaddressed-x-twitter\/\">another investigation<\/a>\u00a0EFCSN member organization Science Feedback found that most of the content on X (formerly Twitter) that fact-checkers found to be false or misleading had no visible signs of having been moderated..<\/p>\n<p>The European Fact-Checking Standards Network is an association of fact-checking organizations who commit to the standards of independence, transparency, and journalistic quality outlined in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations. With over 50 verified members across Europe, the EFCSN is the voice of European fact-checkers.<\/p>\n<div class=\"post-tags\"><a href=\"https:\/\/efcsn.com\/news\/tag\/press-release\/\" rel=\"tag\">Press Release<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The EFCSN strongly condemns Meta\u2019s CEO\u2019s statements linking fact-checking with censorship Platforms retracting\u00a0 from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows for election interference The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4765,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[92,314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analizi","category-siakhleebi"],"aioseo_notices":[],"views":596,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4755"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4755\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4767,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4755\/revisions\/4767"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4765"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geofacts.ge\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}