When Mark Zuckerberg earnestly looked at a camera and told the world (or US president-elect Donald Trump) that he was shutting down all fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram, he left out some important context.
His changes would only apply to US users, just as the EU rolls out a law to target disinformation. There is a couple of ways to look at that. If you believe that Facebook’s work on content moderation has been a form of censorship, then Americans would be blessed with new freedom in Zuckerberg’s vibrant public square. If you think it has protected people from toxicity, you would pity the Americans. Either way, you are going to experience social media differently, depending on which side of an ocean you are on.
Meta Platforms’ fact-checking policies, of course, had problems, illustrated by examples the company provided by fellow Bloomberg Opinion columnist Dave Lee, but the cause was not “political bias,” which Zuckerberg cited without evidence as the reason for shutting the operation down. It was inept decisionmaking.
It would have been more sensible for Zuckerberg to order an upgrade of his fact-checking systems to allow for more nuance, and invest more money in the effort, but the Facebook founder is an opportunist at heart. He jumps on new fads and copies his rivals, and he was bound to take the most politically expedient action when Trump was elected.
With the fact-checkers leaving, along with the “false information” labels they slapped on the occasional post, US users of Facebook and Instagram would be able to join a voluntary system, similar to X’s Community Notes feature, and fact-check each other instead.
Community Notes is not a terrible idea, but does the system work? It depends who you ask. While academic research has shown it can counter some vaccine misinformation and help users distinguish misleading posts, the notes themselves can be slow to implement, and half-truths can go viral by the time they are debated and posted.
Alan Rusbridger and Khaled Mansour, who sit on Meta’s Oversight Board, which deals with content disputes, on Thursday last week wrote in an op-ed piece in Prospect that they do not believe in the model.
“If this model of community notes had applied in Britain at the time of the Southport riots last year, there would have been no one to arbitrate on wild rumors about the identity or religion of the alleged assailant: The truth would take second place to the competing claims of whoever wished to pitch in,” they wrote.
What is more certain is that the experience of Facebook and Instagram would become more geographically fragmented, and not just because of the fact-checkers. Meta AI assistant, which had close to 500 million monthly active users as of September last year, has been delayed in the EU because of concern from the region’s top privacy regulator about using people’s data to train its artificial intelligence (AI) models.
Zuckerberg apparently pities Europeans for missing out.
“It’s sad that I basically have to tell our teams to launch our new AI advances everywhere except the EU at this point,” he wrote on Threads last month. Meta said it represented a “step backwards for European innovation.”
Of course it does not. European innovation is not defined by a large Silicon Valley company giving consumers a widget in exchange for their data. Chatbots collect far more personal details than Google queries ever did, and Meta collects the prompts that people type into its AI. (Meta said that it “may collect and use information, such as your text prompt and generated responses, to improve how our artificial intelligence models work.”)
Maybe it is not the worst outcome for Europeans to miss out on another data-mining operation, until it has been set up to handle their details appropriately. What Zuckerberg frames as a regulatory barrier is a foundation for building public trust in AI systems.
Meta likely would not apply the EU’s new rules on disinformation, known as the Digital Services Act, on Americans, several legal experts say. Doing so would be politically costly for Zuckerberg, particularly when Trump lashes out (and he will) at EU officials for fining companies such as Meta or Google that breach the new law.
That might mark a new era for how social media giants follow European rules. In 2018, when the EU launched its General Data Protection Regulation to protect online privacy, many companies made changes globally because running separate systems was too complex and expensive. However, the “Brussels effect” might now be weakening, as corporate leaders such as Zuckerberg find it more valuable to run their platforms in a more fragmented way and placate government officials on opposite sides of the ocean.
Meta’s changes would not be quite as dramatic as the “Great Firewall,” which has seen China develop a completely siloed Internet culture, but they could spell a decoupling of relations between US and European Internet users over the coming years. Amid growing tensions over trade and territory, that might not be the healthiest direction to go.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is the author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT, and the Race That Will Change the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
RSS