It's complicated: Meta and freedom of expression
Meta abolishes fact checkers. But that alone does not endanger our democracy – This concern falls short of the mark, says Eva-Maria Weiß.
(Image: Frederic Legrand - COMEO/Shutterstock.com/heise online)
Mark Zuckerberg has dropped a bombshell: Meta wants to abolish – – fact-checkers, initially in the USA. He wants to get rid of them (“get rid of fact-checkers”). It is not only at this point that Zuckerberg's speech has a slightly negative undertone. As if he is getting rid of an unpleasant burden. While Zuckerberg speaks of a return to freedom of expression, others see a “danger to our democracy”. But they make it too easy for themselves.
Zuckerberg is exposing himself to the suspicion that he wants to do the re-elected US President Donald Trump a favor. It may be that turning away from stricter moderation in the White House scores him points. It fits in with a series of alleged favors – such as the replacement of Global Affairs Director Nick Clegg with Republican and Trump supporter Joel Kaplan and the appointment of Dana White to the Meta Supervisory Board. White is considered a close friend of Trump and is a questionable appointment as he has a history of violence against women.
However, Zuckerberg is also likely to find this move good or at least practical. He is also getting rid of numerous employees and staff who are indirectly employed via service providers. He has also spoken out in favor of far-reaching freedom of expression since the early days. Even though he is against bullying, propaganda and other misuse of the platform, the Facebook boss considers freedom of expression to be more important in cases of doubt. In 2019, he posed the question during a lecture: “Where should we draw the line?” His answer was: not at all.
Hate and agitation are and remain punishable by law
And then you have to let the sole boss of the company know that these are his platforms. They are privately operated services. He can at least do everything that doesn't violate the law. Just like Elon Musk on X. He now grotesquely cites this platform as a role model – although things are clearly not going particularly well for X. Many companies and people have left the platform, including advertisers.
We don't yet know how and whether there will be more hate or hate speech. But to be honest, my Facebook feed has long been dominated by crazy AI content and fraudulent posts. Instagram tends to thrive on displaying products that you could buy –. The platform has long favored this, as well as threads, over political content.
The concern about hate and agitation may nevertheless be absolutely justified, as heise-medien editor-in-chief Torsten Beeck says. But at least: there are limits, even for Meta – criminally relevant content should be reported, as Zuckerberg also says. They will continue to be deleted. In the EU, for example, the Digital Services Act (DSA) stipulates that Meta must set up reporting offices and respond to reports in a short timeframe.
Videos by heise
Social networks as a catalyst
So why are these private companies endangering our democracy? Because someone and something must be to blame. The world is brutally complex and there is a lot of frustration. Ulrich Beck's book “Die Risikogesellschaft” (The Risk Society), which was published back in 1986, is a good example of the many explanations. In it, Beck explains how people are increasingly losing their bearings in ever more complex societies, for example because prescribed biographies are disappearing. The baker's son no longer becomes a baker. People seek orientation to feel comfortable and secure.
People find supposed orientation in social networks. That's why you can't say that they have no effect at all. Science assumes that they have a catalytic effect. Social networks fuel ideas and create bubbles in which everyone can find someone who believes the same thing – even if that is the existence of lizard people.
Propaganda and the effect
Many a pub conversation has produced similar absurdities in times before the internet. Propaganda is not a new invention either. The Nazis set up entire university institutes to research how best to manipulate people. Social networks and the entire internet are new channels for propaganda.
This also happens independently of moderation. Contributors are often clever enough to circumvent moderation rules. A question mark here, irony and humor there, ambiguity — all this makes content possible that is intended to manipulate or mislead people.
What's more, people cannot be manipulated just like that. There has to be a breeding ground for this. I'm sure you've seen the commercial with Markus Lanz, who is led in handcuffs. Do you believe that? No. It's not that simple. People have to be open to believing in lizard people. But a lot also helps at least a little. Seeing certain content again and again can help us to gradually internalize it more and more and begin to believe it.
So you can't say that what happens on social networks has no effect. We know this, for example, thanks to the whistleblower Frances Haugen. But the power of social networks is limited. Manipulation takes place there, especially far away from moderation options.
Nevertheless, hate and agitation should not be confused with freedom of expression. Moderation is needed here. However, this should be based on laws. We have laws in Germany and in the EU that say what is criminally relevant. The DSA regulates how to deal with such content. The platform operators must adhere to this.
However, we will not be able to prevent people on social networks from believing in lizard people or using irony to influence them. The relationship between freedom of expression and moderation has always been: it's complicated.
(emw)
