Mark Zuckerberg pointed fingers at fact-checking partners for Facebook's moderation issues, claiming they created more distrust than they built, citing political bias in their work. However, fact-checking groups contested this assertion, asserting that they lacked control over post-fact-checking content decisions – a responsibility firmly held by Meta.
Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute, countered Zuckerberg's assertions, noting that the group operated within Meta's framework and had no biases. They utilized Meta's tools to check facts while adhering to protocols that precluded them from targeting politicians.
Lori Robertson, managing editor of FactCheck.org, likewise emphasized that their organization did not possess the authority to remove content or decide actions following fact-checks, citing that all such decisions remained with Meta.
In response to the backlash, Meta is transitioning towards a 'Community Notes' initiative where users will engage in the fact-checking process, a model researchers claim can effectively enhance moderation strategies.
Collection
[
|
...
]