Still, fact-checkers have argued that everyone’s speech should be treated equally on social media regardless of political status. Fact-checkers in Brazil are facing legal battles over their fact-checks of publications viewed as deferential to the current government and Twitter, while not a fact-checker, got a visit from police in India for merely labeling a ruling party spokesperson’s tweet. However, Facebook’s exemption may (unintentionally) protect fact-checkers from the political fallout of their work being attached to a politician’s post. “Facts are crucial to that discourse, and reputable journalism - especially journalism conducted by reliable, trusted fact-checkers - is a necessary part of establishing those facts.” “Everyone needs to agree on the set of facts used in public debate - especially during election campaigns - otherwise people from different ends of the political spectrum are unable to understand each other’s worldview,” Farrer said. Responding to reports about this most recent announcement, Gordon Farrer, chief academic investigator for the Australian outlet RMIT ABC Fact Check, argued the ban should be lifted to help improve the public discourse. In fact, we talked about this in the Factually edition that followed the Oversight Board’s decision in early May. However, Facebook acknowledged in its statement that “public figures often have broad influence across our platform and may therefore pose a greater risk of harm when they violate our Community Standards or Community Guidelines.”įact-checkers and researchers have cited this harm in the past as an argument for why Facebook should remove its fact-checking exemption for politicians. (Full Disclosure: Facebook requires its fact-checking partners to be verified signatories of the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles).įacebook has long argued that political leaders are some of the most scrutinized figures in society, and reasoned that they should be exempt from fact-checking so as to not limit their speech and deprive citizens of hearing from their elected officials. Missing from the announcement was any change to the exemption that bars its Third-Party Fact-Checking partners to fact-check the posts of political leaders. It laid out a more concrete explanation of how it would punish political leaders who violate platform policies during “times of civil unrest and ongoing violence,” and promised to speed up its review of potentially violating content during these designated periods. President Donald Trump off the platform for another two years also included a few tweaks to the way the platform moderates speech by political leaders. Last week’s announcement by Facebook that it would keep former U.S. Sign up here to receive it on your email every Thursday. Factually is a newsletter about fact-checking and misinformation from Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |