logo
Opinion - We need content moderation: Meta is out of step with public opinion

Opinion - We need content moderation: Meta is out of step with public opinion

Yahoo28-01-2025

This is a bad moment for fact-checking.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,' which targets social media platforms' use of fact-checkers to moderate misinformation.
And earlier this month, Meta — which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — claiming Trump's victory shows that Americans prioritize free speech over combating misinformation, announced an end to its partnership with independent fact-checking organizations in the U.S. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's chief executive, acknowledged that these changes will allow more 'bad stuff' on its sites with the promised benefit of reducing the amount of 'censorship' on the platforms.
While Republican leaders have been railing against fact-checking for years, that does not mean these changes reflect the will of the public. In polls of thousands of Americans, we found the opposite — there is broad bipartisan support for platforms taking action against harmfully misleading content, and relying on the judgment of experts to make such decisions. Meta's actions are out of step with the desires of its users.
From 2016 until recently, Facebook and Instagram posts deemed inaccurate by fact-checking partners certified through the nonpartisan International Fact-Checking Network had received warning labels and be demoted in users' feeds, so that fewer people would see unlabeled false content. Meta's recent announcement signals an end to this status quo and a plan to move to a crowdsourced fact-checking model similar to X's Community Notes, where it is up to users to classify posts as misleading.
These changes are the latest in a series of corporate and political moves to restrict tech platforms' efforts to moderate content and suppress misinformation. After Elon Musk acquired Twitter (now X), the company quickly ended its policies prohibiting users from sharing false information about COVID-19 or vaccines, dissolved Twitter's Trust and Safety Council and moved the platform's content moderation efforts to largely rely on its fledgling Community Notes system.
Soon after, similar rollbacks of content moderation efforts occurred at Alphabet (the parent company of Google and YouTube) and Meta. For instance, in 2023 YouTube reversed its policy disallowing content advancing claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election. And Meta enacted layoffs drastically reducing its trust and safety team and curtailing the development of fact-checking tools.
These changes are a fairly clear response to efforts by Republicans to pressure tech platforms to stop moderating false content. Lawmakers in Florida and Texas have attempted to pass laws prohibiting social media platforms from banning or moderating posts from political candidates, claiming censorship of conservative voices.
At the same time, Republicans in Congress, led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), have put academics researching misinformation under legal scrutiny over alleged targeting of right-wing political views. This jeopardizes the ability of academics to evaluate the online information landscape and the effects of waning moderation efforts. Trump's new executive order is the latest round of such efforts.
But what does the American public actually want in terms of content moderation? Along with our colleagues Adam Berinsky, Amy Zhang and Paul Resnick, we first assessed this question in summer 2023 through a nationally representative poll of nearly 3,000 Americans. We asked respondents whether, in general, social media companies should try and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation on their platforms. Americans overwhelmingly agreed — 80 percent indicated that the companies should indeed be trying to reduce harmful misinformation on their platforms. And while this was especially the case for Democrats (93 percent), the majority of Republicans (65 percent) also agreed.
We again examined public opinion on this issue shortly after Meta announced its policy change this month. We asked a new set of nearly 1,000 respondents if they thought social media companies should try to reduce the spread of harmfully misleading content on their platforms. Again, the vast majority (84 percent) agreed — including majority support across Democrats (97 percent), independents (78 percent) and Republicans (65 percent). We also found that a clear majority of respondents (83 percent), including the majority of Republicans (63 percent), supported attaching warning labels that say 'false information' to posts evaluated as such by independent fact-checkers and including links to sources with verifiably correct information.
And although Zuckerberg claimed that fact-checkers 'have destroyed more trust than they created,' we found in a large online experiment that even Republicans perceived fact-checkers as more legitimate at doing content moderation compared to social media users. These findings may foretell a decline in confidence in Meta's content moderation procedures as they pivot to replacing professional fact-checkers with user-based community notes.
Indeed, in our most recent public opinion survey from this month, relying solely on community fact-checking was very unpopular across respondents. We asked which group social media platforms should use to evaluate whether online posts are false — independent fact-checkers, users, a combination of the two or neither. Only 8 percent of respondents (and 11 percent of Republicans) selected the policy using only users to flag and fact-check each other's posts. In contrast, about 39 percent of respondents chose the policy using only independent fact-checkers, and another 40 percent advocated for the policy combining professional fact-checkers and users.
There is an appetite among the mass public for social media companies to continue using moderation policies targeting misleading content. Even the majority of Republicans want these companies to reduce misleading content online and support policies such as the labeling of harmfully misleading content about issues like election integrity. And while user-based content moderation approaches like Community Notes have shown promise, they best serve as a complement to, rather than replacement for, other tools for mitigating falsehoods, such as fact-checker warning labels and downranking misinformation.
Rather than a rollback of moderation efforts, Americans want progress on, not prevention of, platform governance. Instead, Trump's executive order and the recent changes from Meta and other tech giants reflect a major political bias in policy — a bias towards the beliefs of tech billionaires and conservative political elites and away from what the broad public wants.
David Rand is the Erwin H. Schell Professor and professor of Management Science and Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. Cameron Martel is a PhD candidate at MIT.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up
Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up

Axios

time25 minutes ago

  • Axios

Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up

Tesla faces fresh risks to a big income stream: sales of regulatory credits to other automakers under vehicle emissions and efficiency rules. Why it matters: Tesla's credit sales were $595 million last quarter and totaled $3.36 billion in the five quarters through Q1 of 2025. The credits are awarded to companies like Tesla that exceed emissions standards. Producers of gas-powered vehicles buy them to help meet various CO2 and mileage standards. The latest: Republicans on the Senate's commerce committee late last week proposed ending civil penalties under the Transportation Department's fuel economy rules. It's part of the committee's portion of the budget "reconciliation" bill — the top GOP and White House legislative priority. The provision would "modestly" cut auto prices by ending penalties on automakers that now "design cars to conform to the wishes of DC bureaucrats rather than consumers," a GOP summary states. The intrigue:"This Senate action would effectively end the market for CAFE credits," Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, tells Axios via email. Dan Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, noted: "Why buy credits if Trump gives you a get out of CAFE free card?" Driving the news: Separately, DOT on Friday issued an "interpretive rule" that bars consideration of EVs when it sets these mileage rules. It's a step toward crafting replacement standards, DOT said. This paves the way for less aggressive requirements — and less need for buying credits. State of play: Several buckets of credits benefit Tesla, the dominant U.S. EV seller. EPA emissions standards, Transportation Department fuel economy mandates, and California's ambitious clean cars program all provide opportunities. European emissions rules also generate credits. The big picture: The regulatory credit market was already facing risks before all the news late last week. EPA is planning to rescind Biden-era EPA carbon emissions rules for model years 2027 and onward. The House-passed reconciliation bill and the Senate GOP proposal would also nix them. And the House bill pulls back Biden-era DOT mileage rules. Both chambers have passed measures that end EPA's approval of California's auto emissions rules. Threat level: Potential loss of credit revenues comes at a perilous time for Tesla. Its sales have slumped in recent quarters, and CEO Elon Musk's rightward turn and alliance with Trump are among the reasons why, analysts say. The House plan ends $7,500 consumer purchase subsidies for EVs under the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. By the numbers: Credit revenues exceeded Tesla's overall profit last quarter — in other words, it would have been in the red without them. Yes, Q1 was atypically weak for Tesla, but consider Q4 of 2024, when Tesla reported $2.13 billion in profits that were helped along by $692 million in credit sales. In Q3, those numbers were $2.17B and $739M, respectively. Friction point: More broadly, the meltdown of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's relationship with Trump also creates new and unpredictable risks for the billionaire entrepreneur's business empire.

NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies
NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies

In October 2020, two months before Covid-19 vaccines would become available in the US, Stanford health policy professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and two colleagues published an open letter calling for a contrarian approach to managing the risks of the pandemic: protecting the most vulnerable while allowing others largely to resume normal life, aiming to obtain herd immunity through infection with the virus. They called it the Great Barrington Declaration, for the Massachusetts town where they signed it. Backlash to it was swift, with the director-general of the World Health Organization calling the idea of allowing a dangerous new virus to sweep through unprotected populations 'unethical.' Bhattacharya later testified before Congress that it – and he – immediately became targets of suppression and censorship by those leading scientific agencies. Now, Bhattacharya is the one in charge, and staffers at the agency he leads, the US National Institutes of Health, published their own letter of dissent, taking issue with what they see as the politicization of research and destruction of scientific progress under the Trump administration. They called it the Bethesda Declaration, for the location of the NIH. 'We hope you will welcome this dissent, which we modeled after your Great Barrington Declaration,' the staffers wrote. The letter was signed by more than 300 employees across the biomedical research agency, according to the non-profit organization Stand Up for Science, which also posted it; while many employees signed anonymously because of fears of retaliation, nearly 100 - from graduate students to division chiefs - signed by name. It comes the day before Bhattacharya is due to testify before Congress once more, in a budget hearing to be held Tuesday by the Senate appropriations committee. It's just the latest sign of strife from inside the NIH, where some staff last month staged a walkout of a townhall with Bhattacharya to protest working conditions and an inability to discuss them with the director. 'If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe,' said Dr. Jenna Norton, a program officer at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a lead organizer of the Declaration, in a news release from Stand Up for Science. She emphasized she was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the NIH. The letter, which the staffers said they also sent to US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, urged Bhattacharya to 'restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue,' citing work in areas including health disparities, Covid-19, health impacts of climate change and others. They cited findings by two scientists that said about 2,100 NIH grants for about $9.5 billion have been terminated since the second Trump administration began. The NIH budget had been about $48 billion annually, and the Trump administration has proposed cutting it next year by about 40%. The research terminations 'throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars,' the NIH staffers wrote. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million.' They also urged Bhattacharya to reverse a policy that aims to implement a new, and lower, flat 15% rate for paying for indirect costs of research at universities, which supports shared lab space, buildings, instruments and other infrastructure, as well as the firing of essential NIH staff. Those who wrote the Bethesda Declaration were joined Monday by outside supporters, in a second letter posted by Stand Up for Science and signed by members of the public, including more than a dozen Nobel Prize-winning scientists. 'We urge NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership to work with NIH staff to return the NIH to its mission and to abandon the strategy of using NIH as a tool for achieving political goals unrelated to that mission,' they wrote. The letter called for the grant-making process to be conducted by scientifically trained NIH staff, guided by rigorous peer review, not by 'anonymous individuals outside of NIH.' It also challenged assertions put forward by Kennedy, who often compares today's health outcomes with those around the time his uncle John F. Kennedy was president, in the early 1960s. 'Since 1960, the death rate due to heart disease has been cut in half, going from 560 deaths per 100,000 people to approximately 230 deaths per 100,000 today,' they wrote. 'From 1960 to the present day, the five-year survival rate for childhood leukemia has increased nearly 10-fold, to over 90% for some forms. In 1960, the rate of measles infection was approximately 250 cases per 100,000 people compared with a near zero rate now (at least until recently).' They acknowledged there's still much work to do, including addressing obesity, diabetes and opioid dependency, 'but,' they wrote, 'glamorizing a mythical past while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research does not enhance the health of the American people.' Support from the NIH, they argued, made the US 'the internationally recognized hub for biomedical research and training,' leading to major advances in improving human health. 'I've never heard anybody say, 'I'm just so frustrated that the government is spending so much money on cancer research, or trying to address Alzheimer's,' ' said Dr. Jeremy Berg, who organized the letter of outside support and previously served as director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. 'Health concerns are a universal human concern,' Berg told CNN. 'The NIH system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but has been unbelievably productive in terms of generating progress on specific diseases.'

Calif. to sue over National Guard deployment at protests
Calif. to sue over National Guard deployment at protests

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Calif. to sue over National Guard deployment at protests

Good morning, all. If your neck starts bothering you from all that screen time this week, try one of these stretches. Now, on to the news. Subscribe to get this newsletter in your inbox each morning. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said his state would sue the Trump administration today after it deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to L.A. over the weekend to quell protests against immigration raids. The deployment: Trump invoked a law under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to transfer National Guard control from California to the federal government in order to protect ICE — the first time since 1965 that they've been deployed without a state governor requesting it. [CNN] The protests: They began Friday after ICE detained at least 44 people in four raids. The ensuing protests grew increasingly violent, with demonstrators throwing rocks, blocking freeways and burning cars. Police responded by firing tear gas and using flash-bang grenades. [USA Today] Newsom responds: Newsom asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to rescind the order, calling the deployment 'unlawful.' Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said the raids would continue and threatened arrest for anyone who obstructs. 'Arrest me,' Newsom said. [Politico/NBC News] 🏀 Thunder rebound Thunder star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander tallied 34 points in Game 2 of the NBA Finals last night, leading his team to a decisive 123-107 victory against the Pacers and tying the series 1-1. SGA credited his team for the win. [Yahoo Sports] ➡️ Freedom Flotilla crew seized Israel seized a boat carrying humanitarian aid and detained Greta Thunberg and other activists who attempted to break Israel's long-standing blockade on Gaza, where nearly 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine. [AP] 🍳 Egg recall The August Egg Company issued a voluntary recall of 1.7 million dozen of its brown cage-free eggs and brown certified organic eggs distributed in nine states. The FDA has linked the eggs to a salmonella outbreak that's sickened at least 79 people. [Delish] 🎭 Tony Awards highlights Sunset Blvd. star Nicole Scherzinger won Best Leading Actress in a Musical, Jonathan Groff straddled Keanu Reeves while performing and Oprah mentioned the Patti LuPone drama. Here are the most memorable moments. See who won. [Time/Variety] 🦓 Runaway equine After more than a week on the run, 'Ed,' the escaped zebra whose escapades went viral, was captured yesterday and airlifted to safety. See the photos. [USA Today/People] 📺 On the tube: Celebs and music stars gather for the 2025 BET Awards, airing at 8 p.m. ET on BET. Kendrick Lamar leads with 10 nominations, but here's who else is nominated. [Billboard] 🏒 On the ice, the Panthers and the Oilers try to break their 1-1 series tie in Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final at 8 p.m. ET on TNT. [USA Today] ⚾ On the field, the I-5 rivalry continues when the Dodgers take on the Padres at 9:40 p.m. ET on the MLB app. [AP] ☀️ And don't forget to: Read your daily horoscope. Play the crossword. Check the forecast in your area. In 1993, Jurassic Park had its world premiere. More than 30 years later, Scarlett Johansson, a self-proclaimed 'geeked-out fangirl' of the film is set to star in the franchise's seventh installment, Jurassic Park: Rebirth. It's a casting that was 15 years in the making. [Hollywood Reporter] Psst: Father's Day is this Sunday. If you haven't gotten something for Dad yet, Yahoo Gifting Editor Amanda Garrity has some ideas. When you buy through links in this article, Yahoo may receive compensation. Amanda: If you can get your hands on the Nintendo Switch 2, then you'll be Dad's favorite. Other buzzy buys that I'm seeing include Lego's all-new Pixar lamp set, a smart meat thermometer and Hoka recovery slides. Amanda: Act fast and you'll still be able to get a custom photo book from Papier or this coffee table book from Wonderbly, which compiles newspaper headlines from Dad's birthday throughout the years. It's pretty cool! Amanda: I have tons in this gift guide! Every dad needs this leakproof backpack cooler ahead of the summer. Yahoo readers are also buying these battery storage systems and barbecue resting blankets in droves — what can I say: Dad loves a practical buy! Need more ideas? Amanda's got you covered. Sir J. Starks recently surprised his wife, Maurissa, with a six-minute Sephora shopping spree to celebrate their anniversary. The staff and fellow shoppers quickly joined in to help her fill her basket. 'The support staff just converged like the Avengers. It was wild,' Starks said. [People] Have a great day. See you tomorrow! 💡 P.S. Before you go, your daily advice: Give yourself at least three hours between dinner and bedtime to allow for proper digestion and improve the quality of your sleep. [Delish] About The Yodel: The Yodel is a morning newsletter from Yahoo News. Start your day with The Yodel to get caught up on weather, national news, politics, entertainment and sports — in four minutes or less. Did you like this morning's newsletter? Subscribe to have it sent to you on weekdays. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store