Should Politicians be Exempt from Fact-Checks on Facebook?
Short on time?
We consolidate every article and add some fun visuals for our email subscribers. Click below to get this article delivered to your inbox and get signed up for fresh content every week!
KEY SOURCES
Supreme Court: United States v. Alvarez
American Bar Association
Cato Institute
Federal Communication Commission
Journal of Computers in Human Behavior
Pew Research Center
Brookings Institution
WHY THIS QUESTION MATTERS:
After the 2016 Presidential election, Facebook was widely criticized for the spike of misinformation and disinformation that spread on its platform. The most popular fake news stories on Facebook were shared more widely than the most popular mainstream news stories. While Facebook has since taken steps to update its fact checking and speech policies, they clarified that politicians would be exempt from fact-checking rules.
Conversely, Twitter has taken a different stance and made headlines last week for flagging a tweet from the president with a fact-check warning.
Today, we're diving into the debate of fact-checking politicians on social media - focusing specifically on Facebook. Supporters of the fact check exemption say that it is not Facebook’s role to meddle in free speech while opponents say Facebook is giving politicians a free pass to spread misinformation.
LET’S LOOK AT THE ROLE OF FACEBOOK IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS:
User interactions with false content rose steadily on both Facebook and Twitter ahead of the 2016 election. On Twitter, in the five months preceding the 2016 election, Nature Communications found that 25% of tweets spread either fake or extremely biased news. It has been demonstrated that these fake news stories travel faster online than other content and bias in the news influences the democratic process and the way individuals vote.
After the elections, Facebook and other social media platforms were heavily criticized for the misleading or fake information on their platforms. In response, Facebook announced that they would implement a third party fact checker to evaluate content and identify fake news stories. After identifying a questionable article, it will be addressed in three parts:
· Remove accounts and content that violate our Community Standards or ad policies
· Reduce the distribution of false news and inauthentic content like clickbait
· Inform people by giving them more context on the posts they see
Facebook’s process for addressing fake and misleading news will remain critically important as 43% of U.S. adults continue to get their news from Facebook as of 2018.
FACEBOOK’S APPROACH TO 2020:
While Facebook has taken steps to address misinformation as previously described, the company surprised many this September when it reiterated a policy to exempt political figures from fact checking programs. Specifically, there will be no censure on the information unless it incites violence. Also, if a politician re-posts debunked links the politician’s post gets demoted. But any other statement or advertisement directly from a politician will not be fact checked or censured.
Facebook’s announcement prompted 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren to intentionally post a fake political ad that Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, endorsed Trump for 2020 presidency. This story is false, which Warren notes in her ad. The story was intended to call attention to the fact that politicians can share information even if it is demonstrably false. However, supporters of Facebook’s new policy argue that big tech companies should not be in the role of moderating what politicians say or post.
So how should Facebook approach political ads and statements ahead of the 2020 election?
What do you think?
The Common Thread
Supporters and opponents of Facebook’s decision both say that voters should have access to accurate information to make informed choices.
FIND YOUR Thread
Supporters of the fact-check exemption argue that Facebook and other tech giants should not act as an ‘unbiased referee’ in political debates by deciding what information is accurate and what’s not. Opponents of the exemption say that excluding politicians from fact-checks gives political leaders a blank check to spread misinformation online.
Yes, politicians should be exempt from Facebook’s Fact-Checking Programs
Reason 01
Facebook should not get to decide who gets to speak and what they say – that would be a violation of THEIR First Amendment Rights.
In general, the First Amendment protects free speech of private entities from censorship by governmental actors—federal, state, and local. But with 2.41 billion monthly active users, Facebook’s scale makes it function more as a digital public square than a private company. Does this mean First Amendment rights should apply to these private entities that function more like public forums? American Bar Association
Just because information is untrue or misleading doesn't mean it can be censored. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that speech, including false speech, enjoys full First Amendment protection in public discourse. Supreme Court: United States v. Alvarez
Reason 02
Individual voters and media should hold politicians accountable for what they say, not tech companies.
Right or wrong, what politicians say is newsworthy and should be accessible to the public, not blocked by platforms. The role of big tech is simply to provide a platform to speak – it should be the role of consumers to determine the validity of what they say. Cato Institute
If big tech were in the driver’s seat of content censorship, it would give Silicon Valley the immense power of determining the truth and being an ‘unbiased’ referee in political debates. Cato Institute
Reason 03
Legislators should be setting the rules, not individual companies.
Mark Zuckerberg has been calling for government to take a more active role in regulating the internet so that digital information rules are not left up to individual tech companies. Zuckerberg Op Ed
The Federal Communications Act of 1934 states that television broadcasters can’t reject a presidential candidate’s ad even if it contains false information – shouldn’t the same principles be applied to digital mediums? Federal Communication Commission
No, politicians should NOT be exempt from Facebook’s Fact-Checking Programs
Reason 01
Without fact checks, Facebook is giving politicians a free pass to spread misinformation to millions instantly.
Individuals (like politicians) with more connections have greater influence on information dissemination via their “network effect.” Journal of Computers in Human Behavior
People often use the number of retweets or shares as a proxy for credibility – so information shared by politicians with a large network may automatically appear more credible, whether or not the information is actually factual. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior
Reason 02
Politicians should be held to the same standards as everyone else for their conduct on social media.
56% of Americans believe that tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online, even if that limits the freedom of information. Pew Research
While Facebook is increasing fact-checks in other areas, the company policy exempts politicians and political ads from the third-party fact-checking program. This has prompted critics to look for legislative approaches that would specifically call for fact-checks on digital platforms. Brookings Institution
Reason 03
Voters do not have the tools or the time to determine what is and is not factual and not on their own.
It’s already hard for voters to tell what’s fake vs real -- 64% of adults believe fake news stories cause a great deal of confusion and 23% said they had shared fabricated political stories themselves – sometimes by mistake and sometimes intentionally. Pew Research
Facebook argues that individual voters are ultimately responsible for determining what they believe – but in a world of filter bubbles and self-confirmation bias, experts believe individuals will seek information based on what they believe in more than what is factual. Pew Research
Subscribe to our weekly email to cast your vote on a fresh topic every week.
Story originally published 2/3/2020. Updated 6/1/2020 to include developments in story.