Discontent amongst Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checkers in Denmark

The final speaker in this ECREA 2024 session is Mette Bengtsson, whose focus is on the relationship between Meta and its network of approved third-party fact-checking organisations. Fact-checking has developed considerably around the world in recent years, and there are several global organisations connecting this network – including the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Meta currently partners with some 90 fact-checking organisations around the world, covering some 60 languages. These can use Meta’s data tools to identify currently circulating claims and select them for assessment; once such assessments have been made, Meta can use them in adjusting its algorithmic ranking of such content (but this happens internally and it is not clear exactly how and when such decisions are made).

Mette has conducted interviews and ethnographic fieldwork in a Danish fact-checking newsroom, TjekDet, in 2019-24, and this reveals fact-checkers’ attitudes towards their collaboration with Meta. At first, fact-checkers emphasised machinic virtues and pointed to their ability to identify problematic claims in an ocean of data, but these positive views grew increasingly mixed; they highlighted a lack of transparent action on fact-checks, and negative algorithmic changes imposed on reliable sources. The overall partnership with Meta was also seen as challenging.

Potentials in the scale and speed of the algorithmic system were seen as positive, at first; the system for detecting problematic claims was seen as powerful and efficient. However, training the system to the local context proved difficult, and the inner workings of the system were poorly explained; the system was also centred especially on addressing specific topics (e.g. COVID-19), and in other contexts seemed to flag irrelevant content or material from sources known to be reliable. This made it difficult for fact-checkers to make independent decisions about what key topics to focus on.

Overall, then, the Meta fact-checking programme carries fundamentally problematic ideals and understandings about democracy. Fact-checkers are positioned simply as content moderators rather than as fact-checking journalists. This keeps them from acting fully in their role; much of their fact-checking activity is now directed by the system at statements from ordinary citizens rather than major societal actors, and this places them in an uncomfortable position as censors of free speech on Meta’s platforms.