Meta's New Fact-Checking System Should Concern Us All

“Consider the source.”

This is how my former colleague — a seasoned journalist I had the pleasure of working with at a local newsroom — started one of his recent speeches on media literacy. It made me think critically about the state of disarray we are in as a chronically online society.

Disinformation and misinformation have risen exponentially since platforms like X (formally Twitter) and Facebook began taking the place of newspapers and live TV reports. Just this week, Meta announced they are doing away with third-party fact-checking altogether and taking the route employed by X of letting their user base decide what requires more context. TikTok, also a breeding ground for misinformation, was on its way to a ban in the U.S. – until this week when Kevin O'Leary decided to put his name down on a bid to purchase the platform and keep it running.

Sure, people still turn to mainstream outlets for breaking news now and again, but it has become the norm to surf social media for that new breaking story. The problem is that people tend to gravitate towards questionable or unconfirmed sources who tell them what they want to hear.

Working in a newsroom for approximately six years showed me exactly how much work it takes for these outlets to publish news stories that the public relies on. Until recently, it was widely recognized that mainstream outlets had the most reputable information. That is still technically the case given that a news outlet must always obtain two (or more) trusted sources before publishing a story.

Somewhere along the way, public trust in these outlets has wavered, and people have started to believe that newscasters are not delivering the full story (but @anonymousantiwokeguy55 can publish something no questions asked, providing you information that should be taken as fact because they “just know.”).

This exodus away from reputable sources to search for news elsewhere is not just problematic for a small portion of the population—it is growing into something far more sinister and, frankly, dangerous.

If enough people believe a piece of information, it can put people at real risk. Historically, we don’t have to look very far to find instances of this (the Holocaust, for example), that occurred long before information was as readily accessible as it is now. More recently, phrases like “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats” might make you shudder in disgust, but a frighteningly large amount of people took (and continue to take) Donald Trump’s words as gospel.

These examples, and countless others like them, are exactly why media literacy is so important, and why we need to fight what may appear to be a losing battle against fact-checking. That fight starts with learning how to determine not just what is fact, but the strength of the sources behind those facts.

Finland has started that learning process from a young age, teaching kids as young as 14 how to properly engage with the flurry of information being thrown at them from a variety of sources. Young adults in these institutions are learning to separate fact from fiction, which includes conducting the most basic of research practices for each piece of news they consume.

However, major platforms aren’t making this process easy. X and Meta are relying on the user to call out mis/disinformation, letting them add additional context that they feel is necessary. This creates a confusing landscape for the public to parse through, often leading them to the much easier solution of just accepting what they read.

We are in a precarious position as a society when it comes to determining what is real and factual, but there are still ways to confirm that what you’re seeing is not just another stream of consciousness from someone prioritizing agendas over accuracy.

Ask questions. Think critically. Consider the source.

The current media environment can be overwhelming. Let us help you break through the noise. [email protected]