Considering that Meta has been so definitive in its stance that Community Notes is an all-round better approach to content moderation within social apps, it’s interesting to read its latest overview of how it’s preparing for the upcoming Australian election, and how it’s planning to combat misinfo in a nation not governed by Donald Trump.
Under local electoral rules, the Australian Government has to call an election before May 17th, which means that an official announcement on a date is coming very soon.
And getting ahead of this, Meta’s head of public policy in Australia, Cheryl Seeto, has provided an overview of its plans to address potential misinformation during the campaign.
Which, as 404 Media has highlighted, is very reliant on utilizing third party fact-checking and approved information sources.
As per Seeto:
“We will continue to work with AFP and the AAP to independently review content through Meta Australia’s third party fact-checking program. When content is debunked by these fact-checkers, we attach warning labels to the content and reduce its distribution in Feed and Explore so it is less likely to be seen.”
Meta has launched the first stage of its Community Notes pilot to selected users in the U.S., and it plans to expand that roll-out to more regions over time. But for now, the Australian team will continue to rely on third-party fact checks.
Which Meta Australia’s promoting as a good thing, despite Meta’s main account saying that fact-checking, in the U.S. in particular, has “gone too far” resulting in “too many mistakes”.
The fact that the Australian arm of the company is seemingly highlighting a counter approach outside of the U.S. could reinforce the suggestion that Meta’s only making these changes to appease Trump, though Meta says that it is committed to gradually shifting to Community Notes, which it maintains is a better approach, in all regions.
Yet, that’s not how it sounds in Seeto’s overview:
“We are also partnering with AAP on a new media literacy campaign to help Australians critically assess the content they view online, which will run in the lead-up to the election.”
So, Meta’s noting that this is a positive, that relying on support from the same providers that power its third-party fact checks is a valuable way to reduce misinformation around elections.
Yet, it’s also eliminating the same, in the U.S. at least.
So which is better? Is third-party fact-checking, as Meta Australia’s promoting, the best way to ensure a more accurate flow of information in Meta’s apps, or is Community Notes a better system?
Again, the argument could be made that Meta’s only making the switch at the behest of Trump, because in this case at least, it seems that Meta Australia believes that third-party confirmation is a valuable enhancement of its safety tools.
In response to 404 Media’s article on this, Meta has noted that while it is planning to expand its Community Notes approach to all regions, that isn’t happening just yet, and Meta will refine and improve its Community Notes system as it expands.
As such, its current processes remain the best defense against election info in other regions. Though it’ll be interesting to see just how long it takes Meta to expand its crowd-sourced fact-checking process, and whether it does indeed matter as much to the company outside of Trump’s sphere of influence.
Because as many have noted, it seems very much like Mark Zuckerberg had a meeting with Trump, and asked how Meta could work with the Trump Administration over the next four years. And Trump then gave Meta a list of demands, which it’s seemingly now met, in the hopes that Trump will assist the company in battling regulatory restrictions on various fronts.
It seems, then, like switching to Community Notes may not actually be what’s best for users, even if it is what’s best for the company.
As such, maybe it’ll end up taking Meta a really long time to expand its Community Notes process outside of America. Like, four years long.
