Read more at source.
Read more at source.
The shift in Meta's content moderation policies has been met with a mixed response. While some praise the move as a step towards greater freedom of speech, others raise concerns about the potential for misinformation and harmful content to spread unchecked. Prior to this change, Meta faced criticism for its hands-off approach to content moderation during high-profile global elections.
Meta's new policies could have significant implications for political discourse on its platforms. By lifting restrictions on certain topics, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that more political content and posts on issues that have inflamed the culture wars in the US in recent years would return to people's feeds. However, the specifics of what topics these new rules would cover were not detailed.
The abandonment of third-party fact-checking and the shift to a Community Notes model raises questions about the company's ability to effectively moderate content. Kaplan criticized fact-checking experts for their biases and perspectives, claiming they led to over-moderation. However, reports have indicated that dangerous content like medical misinformation and recruitment efforts by anti-government militias have flourished on the platform.
We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations - Joel Kaplan, Meta's Chief Global Affairs Officer
