Meta weighs in on the free speech versus censorship debate
Meta’s decision to abandon the use of independent fact-checkers on Facebook and Instagram has intensified the debate over how we manage the delicate balance between free speech and censorship.
The company’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, made the announcement earlier this month claiming third-party content monitors on the social media sites were politically biased. Meta will now implement a ‘community notes’ system where users of the platforms will be left to comment on the accuracy of posts, emulating the format used by Elon Musk’s X.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdJoel Kaplan, a close ally of Donald Trump who is replacing Nick Clegg as Meta’s Global Affairs Chief, defended the company’s decision, saying it would promote free speech on the platforms. “Too much harmless content gets censored,” he said. “Too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in ‘Facebook jail’, and we are often too slow to respond when they do.”


However, with Mr Zuckerberg said to be keen on improving relations with President Trump, there are concerns that Meta was politically motivated to change its policy. Indeed, Mr Trump claimed the company’s announcement was ‘probably’ a direct response to threats he made against Zuckerberg for what he and his Republican Party allies perceive as censorship of right-wing voices. Meta also donated $1m towards the fund for Mr Trump’s inauguration, which takes place today.
This new policy will only impact Facebook and Instagram users in the US, at least for the time being, with the company stating there are “no immediate plans" to get rid of third-party fact checkers in the UK or EU. It is, however, highly likely Meta will come under further pressure across Europe from those who believe their content monitors are stifling free speech on their platforms, which have enormous reach across the continent.
Meta’s announcement will certainly add further fuel to an already heated debate here over freedom of expression which has been ongoing for some time. In 2023, The Stand Comedy Club was forced to apologise to the then MP Joanna Cherry in a freedom of speech row after the venue cancelled her Edinburgh Fringe show, claiming staff were not comfortable with her views on trans issues. Only last year, serious concerns were raised over the potential impact on free speech due to the introduction of updated hate crime legislation in Scotland.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdRegardless of what is driving the latest developments at Meta, we must not lose sight of the importance freedom of expression plays in any democratic society. There is undoubtedly an inherent risk of political bias when fact-checkers moderate a social media platform as they do so from their subjective position.
However, while free speech is essential, it is also not without limits. Many have voiced fears that this move towards less moderation could expose children to more harmful content. While there is undoubtedly justification over such concerns and children’s access to online content remains an issue which needs to be addressed, it should be the role of our legal structures to determine when others have overstepped the limit, rather than moderators on a social media platform, or staff of a Fringe venue.
Whether or not we agree with some of the comments expressed on social media, it is important to maintain legal structures that can enable free speech while punishing those who breach the laws we have in place. Let’s also not forget that the block button is always available for those who wish to filter opinions they do not value.
Kirsteen MacDonald is founder and director, Mac Media Law
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.