I'm happy to see that Axios is having spasms over Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing that Facebook won't be using PolitiFact any more as its official fact-checker — instead, Facebook will move to a system like X's Community Notes, which works brilliantly. We've done three stories in the past couple of weeks about Axios and fact-checking.
For example, we wrote about Axios' meltdown over the idea that people could say mean things on Facebook:
Under Meta's newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called "filth," users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an "it."
— Axios (@axios) January 9, 2025
Axios took it a step further and declared that we need reality-checkers:
Fact-checking suddenly looks inadequate and practically irrelevant. Whole realities — the supposed culprits for the LA fires, a new MAGA world map, a child sex-abuse scandal in Britain — now sweep the internet overnight.
— Axios (@axios) January 10, 2025
We no longer need fact-checkers. We need reality-checkers.
And our own Amy Curtis reported earlier today that Axios is freaking out over the fact that CEOs can now say whatever they want.
Trump's superpower has always been that he is able to say truly outrageous things and suffer no real repercussions for doing so.
— Axios (@axios) January 16, 2025
Elon Musk has followed in his footsteps — and now others are jumping on the bandwagon, most prominently Mark Zuckerberg. https://t.co/zq2rqvVJZs
I remember writing a few pieces at the dawn of the Trump administration about journalists writing and academics submitting op-eds about how maybe the First Amendment wasn't such a good idea: journalists against free speech, of all things. An op-ed in the Los Angeles Times argued that free speech was giving marginalized groups PTSD and eating disorders.
Recommended
Now, on the same day it fretted that Donald Trump and Elon Musk can say "truly outrageous things," Axios has a scoop: Google will not be employing fact-checkers despite a new law in the European Union, which has proved to be hostile to free speech, particularly that which refers to unvetted migrants or transgender people.
Scoop: @Google says it won't do fact-checking
— Sara Fischer (@sarafischer) January 16, 2025
—Days after @Meta said it would end fact-checking, @google is telling EU regulators it won't add fact-checks to its search results or YouTube videos, despite requirements from a new EU law
More on @axioshttps://t.co/OhFXnhP3Nm
Before we give Google too much praise, we acknowledge that its search engine has a wildly left-wing bias. During the campaign, a search for Donald Trump would bring up six news stories about Kamala Harris.
Sara Fischer writes:
Google has told the EU it will not add fact checks to search results and YouTube videos or use them in ranking or removing content, despite the requirements of a new EU law, according to a copy of a letter obtained by Axios.
The big picture: Google has never included fact-checking as part of its content moderation practices. The company had signaled privately to EU lawmakers that it didn't plan to change its practices, but it's reaffirming its stance ahead of a voluntary code becoming law in the near future.
The EU's Code of Practice on Disinformation, introduced in 2022, "would require Google to incorporate fact-check results alongside Google's search results and YouTube videos. It would also force Google to build fact-checking into its ranking systems and algorithms."
I learned last week that there's an actual body called the International Fact-Checking Network composed of some 170 organizations worldwide, as it convened an emergency meeting upon Zuckerberg's announcement.
Good for Google for defying the EU. Who would fact-check the results of every search and YouTube video? The IFCN? How could that possibly be implemented?
The solution is to crowdsource fact-checking, which is what Community Notes does. I get to vote Community Notes as helpful or not helpful, and the criteria are clear: does the post cite reliable sources? It is free of bias?
The fact-checking industry, which is in fear of losing a lot of money, is just like the mainstream media: it's destroyed its own reputation by being so flagrantly biased. It was funny enough when NBC's Katy Tur compared journalists to firefighters racing toward the flames; now CNN's Brian Stelter says firing your fact-checker is like firing your fire department.
"Cutting fact checkers from social platforms is like disbanding your fire department." https://t.co/eEcDL8ocr4
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 13, 2025
Speaking of fire departments, Gov. Gavin Newsom is currently embarrassing himself by being more concerned about misinformation than fires being put out. He even launched a website to fight fire disinformation, even though it's really a 2028 campaign website, complete with a button to donate: not to fire victims but to Newsom.
The day Great Britain voted in favor of Brexit, my wife and kids and I celebrated by having lunch at an English-style pub. The EU is terrible, but England hasn't exactly covered itself in glory lately, arresting people for posts that caused someone anxiety.
Axios will probably have another opinion piece up by tomorrow saying how dangerous it is that Google isn't going to fact-check search results.
But they will continue to promote some topics over others
— saltybarr (@JudyBar17485571) January 17, 2025
Obviously.
***
