Do you want 'truth' determined by 'fact-checkers'?
This is not always easy, but it is important: one of the most basic roles we have here at the Free Speech Union is to make the case for free speech, even when everyone else is lined up against it.
That's exactly what happened this week in response to Mark Zuckerberg's announcement that Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram) will no longer use fact-checkers in content moderation.
Unsurprisingly, this has drawn a lot of opposition. When I spoke with 1News about this on Sunday night, they introduced the story by claiming, "There's growing concern recent changes to social media giant Meta are going to leave minority groups vulnerable to abuse and violence."
The story went on to include breathless commentary from the National Women's Council and the Federation of Islamic Associations that removing fact-checking will mean 'vulnerable groups' suffer.
Of course, it would be too much to expect them to note that it is actually the vulnerable and minority that suffer the most where there is no free speech (as I wrote about a while ago in an opinion piece in The Herald).
This week, I was invited to write another opinion piece in The Herald in response to Meta's decision. And this is what I claimed:
Critics of Meta’s move (of which there are many) would do well to consider the alternative. A world where tech giants act as gatekeepers of truth is a world where dissent is stifled, innovation is curbed, and trust in democratic institutions erodes further. That is where content moderation has led us.
***
Fighting for free speech isn't to say that all speech is good. It's to say that censorship is a cure worse than the disease. The better path is one where citizens are empowered to engage critically with information, where robust public discourse allows ideas to rise or fall based on their merits, and where the principle of free speech remains paramount.
Meta's recent announcement to replace 'fact checkers' with community notes is a big step in the right direction for speech online, regardless of the motives that may be behind it.
Article after article claims this change will lead to misinformation running rampant, the distortion of public debate, and the polarisation of communities; these are such narrow-minded responses.
What it boils down to is this: would you rather leave the deciphering of 'truth' up to a select group of so-called 'fact-checkers'? Or would you prefer a diversity of views can be aired and deliberated on?
I know what I'd rather.
But let me be clear: I don't see this as a principled move by Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, who have supported censorship when it has suited them, as I explained in my op-ed.
I can still think it's the right move for free speech, though. And it's important that in the face of the would-be-censors lining up to call this the end of the world, someone is boxing the other corner.
Censorship is a natural impulse to ideas we don't like. Many will advocate for it with good intentions. But the freedom of our thoughts and speech should not be in the hands of corporations or the Government.
Instead, we need to focus on being equipped to recognise and reject harmful falsehoods. This is the most sustainable way to combat misinformation without stifling legitimate expression.
Better ideas, and the ability to identify and promote them, are the best tools for defeating bad ideas, not censorship.
***
We fought against 'hate speech' laws and won. We fought against an online censorship regime and won. Changes like this from Meta are encouraging, but there are plenty of people out there who disagree with this stance.
If we're to keep our speech free, we cannot become complacent.
That's why this year, one of our strategic goals is to focus on protecting online speech. It's highly contested, and there needs to be leaders advocating for freedoms within this modern-day public square. The reality is, though, we can't do it without you.
Thanks for joining us in the fight.
![]() |
|
P.S. You don't need me to tell you; it's an uphill battle, making the claim that everyone should be free to think and speak for themselves. We can't win this fight, if we can't keep the lights on.
Do you like this post?
You might also like: