I am deeply saddened and simultaneously outraged by the ongoing political and social changes in the United States. Once a global beacon of democracy, the country has fallen to 36th place in global democracy rankings, trailing behind Australia at 13th, New Zealand at 7th, and the Nordic countries holding the top four positions. The USA’s declining commitment to democratic values is alarming, especially given its immense global influence. The policies and developments currently taking shape in the country are poised to worsen an already chaotic geopolitical landscape.
The recent decisions by Meta and X (formerly Twitter) to abandon fact-checking efforts epitomise this troubling trajectory. By deprioritising the fight against fake news, hate speech, and disinformation, these platforms are facilitating a populist and divisive direction in democracies worldwide. It is disheartening to witness this shift from companies that wield such significant global influence.
Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada must now confront the challenge of maintaining their own social media regulations. A coordinated effort with the European Union will be essential to counter the incoming U.S. administration’s pressure to adopt looser content moderation policies. History has shown that dismissing such developments as mere bluster risks leaving us unprepared for their real consequences.
Meta’s shift from fact-checking to “community notes”
Meta’s decision to scrap its independent fact-checking program and replace it with a “community notes” model mirrors the approach taken by X. Mark Zuckerberg has framed this as a return to “free expression” and an end to “too much censorship.” However, this shift dismantles critical safeguards that have limited the spread of harmful misinformation on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.
Since 2016, Meta’s fact-checking initiative has played a pivotal role in combating global misinformation. Collaborating with organisations like Reuters Fact Check and Agence France-Presse, the program flagged false content and provided contextual information to users. For instance, in Australia alone, Meta flagged over 9.2 million Facebook posts and 510,000 Instagram posts in 2023, significantly curbing the spread of misinformation during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
The abandonment of this initiative in favour of a user-driven model raises serious concerns. Early evaluations of X’s “community notes” system reveal its ineffectiveness in countering disinformation. Without professional oversight, these platforms risk becoming echo chambers for extremist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.
The populist playbook: free speech versus accountability
Zuckerberg’s rhetoric about free expression aligns with a broader populist agenda that conflates free speech with a lack of accountability. By abandoning fact-checking, Meta and X are prioritising viral engagement—often driven by outrage and sensationalism—over public responsibility. This poses a direct threat to democratic values by amplifying divisive narratives and discrediting factual discourse.
The timing of these policy changes coincides with the rise of a U.S. administration that has historically benefited from the spread of misinformation. These platforms may leverage this political climate to pressure other governments into adopting looser content moderation policies, undermining regional efforts to regulate big tech.
Amplifying societal harm and democratic erosion
The backlash to Meta’s decision has been swift. In The Guardian, Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young described the move as creating a “free-for-all on misinformation, disinformation, abuse, and trolling.” Similarly, Dr. Emma Briant of Monash University warned that such decisions embolden authoritarian tendencies, noting, “ordinary citizens should be very concerned.”
Misinformation on critical issues such as immigration and gender could fuel extremist ideologies and deepen societal divisions. As Imran Ahmed of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate pointed out, this decision turbocharges the spread of unchallenged lies, posing significant harm to public health, safety, and democratic integrity.
The role of Europe and Australia in countering big tech’s retreat
Despite Meta and X’s retreat from fact-checking, regions like Europe and Australia have shown a willingness to stand up to big tech. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes stringent content moderation requirements, while Australia’s Online Safety Act holds platforms accountable for harmful content. These legislative measures are crucial in curbing the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation.
Australia has also implemented significant reforms to combat big tech’s influence. The government has introduced laws restricting under-16s from accessing social media platforms and mandating platforms to pay publishers for news content. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland underscored the importance of trusted information, emphasising that policies supporting fact-checked journalism are essential to safeguarding democracy.
The ripple effect: global implications
Meta’s decision jeopardises independent fact-checking organisations worldwide, many of which rely on funding from big tech. Without this support, these organisations face operational challenges, weakening their ability to combat disinformation. This is particularly concerning in regions with limited resources to address state-sponsored propaganda or politically motivated misinformation campaigns.
Protecting democracy in a post-fact-checking world
The retreat of Meta and X from fact-checking underscores the urgent need for coordinated global action. Policymakers in Europe, Australia, and other regions must prioritise regulatory measures that enforce content moderation and protect independent fact-checking. Civil society organisations and academia also play a crucial role in educating the public on media literacy and supporting alternative fact-checking models.
Digital Rights Watch, advocates for taxing big tech to fund high-quality journalism and misinformation education. Such measures are necessary to counter the proliferation of extremist content and ensure that polarising narratives do not dominate public discourse.
Democracy thrives on informed discourse. By making hate speech, fake news, and misinformation more prominent, tech giants are abdicating their responsibility to society. Governments, independent organisations, and individuals must act decisively to fill this void and uphold democratic principles in the digital age.
Paul Budde