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

US and China ‘back to square one' after two days of trade talks
US and China ‘back to square one' after two days of trade talks

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US and China ‘back to square one' after two days of trade talks

Talks between the US and China are 'back to square one' after two days of trade negotiations in London failed to secure a major deal. Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump's commerce secretary, said the two sides had agreed on a 'framework' to put their trading relations back on track and repair the truce initially agreed in Geneva last month. There was little market reaction to the announcement at Lancaster House shortly after midnight, with the dollar strengthening a little and stock markets opening marginally higher. The two sides have until Aug 10 to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement to ease trade tensions, or US tariffs on China will snap back from about 30pc to 145pc, with China's levies on America increasing from 10pc to 125pc. Josh Lipsky, of the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center in Washington, said: 'They are back to square one but that's much better than square zero.' Jim Reid, a Deutsche Bank analyst, added: 'While the mood music has stayed positive, investors may be wary of the pattern that emerged during the previous US-China trade talks in 2018-19, when apparently constructive in-person meetings seemed to take a step back as the negotiating teams returned to their capitals. 'So there's perhaps a little disappointment this morning that we haven't yet got a bigger announcement, even though there's time to hear the full conclusions of the meeting.' Senior officials from Washington and Beijing had gathered in London after accusations from both sides that they had violated the terms of the deal made in Switzerland. Mr Trump and Xi Jinping held a call last week that Mr Lutnick said 'gave the fundamental foundation on which we were able to reach agreement'. Mr Lutnick said: 'We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents. 'The idea is we're going to go back and speak to President Trump and make sure he approves it. 'They're going to go back and speak to President Xi and make sure he approves it, and if that is approved, we will then implement the framework.' In a separate briefing, Li Chenggang, China's vice commerce minister, said a trade framework had been reached in principle that would be taken back to US and Chinese leaders. Mr Lutnick said China's restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals and magnets to the US would be resolved as a 'fundamental' part of the framework agreement. He also said the agreement would remove some of the recent US export restrictions, but did not provide details. Kathleen Brooks, the research director at XTB, a trading platform, said: 'Overall, the US-China trade agreement is taking its time, and it could test the market's patience.' Meanwhile, the European Union reportedly believes it could extend its trade negotiations with the US beyond the initial deadline next month. The EU thinks there could be scope for further talks if it agrees a deal in principle by July 9, which is considered its best-case scenario, according to Bloomberg. The Trump administration is scheduled to enforce 50pc tariffs on EU goods beyond that date unless a deal is reached. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Inflation holds steady as data shows how prices are faring after Trump's ‘Liberation Day' tariffs
Inflation holds steady as data shows how prices are faring after Trump's ‘Liberation Day' tariffs

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Inflation holds steady as data shows how prices are faring after Trump's ‘Liberation Day' tariffs

Inflation held steady last month, according to data that gives the first glimpse of how prices are faring since President Donald Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Consumer prices rose 0.1 percent on a monthly basis in May, while annual inflation stood at 2.4 percent, according to the Department of Labor's consumer price index. The report captures the period after Trump unveiled his global reciprocal tariffs in April and provides some insight as to whether businesses are bearing the brunt of the duties themselves or passing them on to customers. Analysts predicted to see a bigger increase, but some still warn the future is uncertain because tariffs keep changing. 'So far, inflation risks from higher tariffs are subdued,' Win Thin, global head of markets strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, told Bloomberg. 'Nonetheless, US protectionist trade policy and uncertainty about the ultimate level of tariffs are downside risks to growth and upside risk to inflation. Bottom line: the fundamental USD downtrend is intact.' Since Trump announced his global reciprocal tariffs and the stock market was spooked, many of the duties were paused. However, 10 percent tariffs for most countries remain. Inflation has been slow to respond to the tariffs as most retailers are selling merchandise accumulated before the import duties took effect. Economists said that the reduction in the scale of some trade tariffs may have 'helped to restrain cost increases thus far,' Wells Fargo's Sarah House and Nicole Cervi said. 'That said, as the higher tariff regime persists, shielding consumers from the costs is likely to become more challenging,' the economists added. 'Only a few goods prices likely rose as a result of the new tariffs in May,' Pantheon Macroeconomics economists Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen said in a note, Bloomberg reports. 'June will be a different story — while some providers of discretionary services probably cut prices or kept them low to sustain demand.' Walmart warned customers last month that they could see price rises because of the trade tariffs. The retailer's chief financial officer John David Rainey said that the tariffs are 'still too high.' 'It's more than any supplier can absorb. And so I'm concerned that consumer is going to start seeing higher prices,' he said. 'You'll begin to see that, likely towards the tail end of this month, and then certainly much more in June.' Reuters contributed reporting

Donald Trump confirms US-China deal done, says rare earth deal and 55% tariffs finalised
Donald Trump confirms US-China deal done, says rare earth deal and 55% tariffs finalised

Business Upturn

time21 minutes ago

  • Business Upturn

Donald Trump confirms US-China deal done, says rare earth deal and 55% tariffs finalised

Donald Trump touts 55% tariffs and rare earth supply in pending China deal By News Desk Published on June 11, 2025, 17:56 IST Last updated June 11, 2025, 17:57 IST Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday announced via social media that a new deal with China has been reached, pending final approval from both himself and Chinese President Xi Jinping. According to Trump, the agreement includes upfront Chinese supply of 'full magnets' and 'any necessary rare earths' to the U.S. In return, the U.S. will uphold previously agreed terms, which Trump said include allowing Chinese students to continue studying at American colleges and universities — a relationship he described as 'always been good with me!' Trump emphasized that under the new deal, the U.S. will receive a combined total of 55% in tariffs, while China will get 10%. 'Relationship is excellent!' Trump declared in the post, adding thanks for attention to the matter. The post, shared on June 11, 2025, at 8:04 AM, comes amid ongoing geopolitical and trade tensions between the world's two largest economies. No official confirmation has yet been released by Chinese authorities or the U.S. State Department. News desk at

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