Stephen Judd: Group pushes back against Meta fact-check removal

A group fighting misinformation says Facebook's solution to moderation shouldn't just be switching off fact-checkers. 

Meta, which also owns Instagram, says it will change to community based moderation like that used on X. 

Its Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg says the third party fact-checkers it uses have become too politically-biased.

But Fact Aotearoa spokesperson Stephen Judd says they believe in a solution to misinformation which is much more long-term. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk ZEDB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
And Facebook's owner Meta has pulled the pin on fact
checking and the words of founder Mark Zuckerberg, they're getting
rid of the third party service aimed at removing disinformation online.
Analysts believe it's more of a move to a p's
US President elect Donald Trump joining me now is fight
against conspiracy theories. Our Towerower otherwise known as fact our

(00:38):
spokesperson Stephen Judd, Stephen, good morning.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Good morning, How are you doing?

Speaker 2 (00:43):
Good?

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Good?

Speaker 2 (00:44):
What did you make of Zuckerberg's reasons.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
Not to be taken at phase value? So the thing
is that Meta owns Facebook, but it also owns Instagram
and WhatsApp, So they've been building out a new monopoly
and are probably pretty worried about the Federal Trade Commission
coming after them for violation of anti trust laws. And
they're now facing a political climate that's really hostile to

(01:13):
what they've been doing. So when you put those two
things together, that's a much more likely motivation than high
minded claims about for a speech m What.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
About the move shifting the sort of monitoring arm that
still exists from California to Texas? Is he just moving
up to Trump heartland? Sounded like that, didn't it.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, I think that's that's definitely some an inference we
can take from that. I actually read something yesterday where
a Republican senator was saying, this is just about avoiding
being regulated and currying favor. So I think, you know,
we can probably think, yeah, there's there's evidence to believe that.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
What's the fact checking working? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (02:00):
It to us to some extent. The thing about fact
checking and moderation is it's a really expensive, labor intensive
thing to do well, and in fact, that may be
another motivation is simply avoiding that ongoing cost, and to
do it in an automated way is a little bit

(02:21):
error prone. That's why you need the human element. But
we did see a big drop in that kind of
content in the years after they brought that in.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
There's something about enlisting the masses, isn't it? But you
talked about the human element. Well, we're gonna have truckloads
of that now, aren't we.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yeah. The thing about enlisting the masses is that that's
not a substitute for expert judgment, and what we've seen
on X formerly Twitter is that when a topic's really contentious,
politically loaded, whatever, the community fact checking just doesn't work
very well just because the majority isn't always right or

(03:02):
because people can't agree. It does even an impartial third party.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
It does raise the flag though, even if I mean
often when I see, for instance, something on X and
I see community guidelines and there's something is triggered, I
instantly I go somewhere else to look for the truth
because I think, oh, this is you know what I mean?
It flags it at least, doesn't it.

Speaker 3 (03:22):
It does flag up that something's contentious. But on X
you're not even going to see that until there's some
sort of consensus between the community fact checkers. Otherwise you're
not seeing anything.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
How what about what governments can do to tackle this?
I think Zuckerber talked about the problems that they're facing
in Europe and with the laws and trying to push
back against that as well. But do you think our
government can do anything about this?

Speaker 3 (03:55):
We think that the answer is actually much more long
term focused stuff around building a public that's media savvy
and critical and good at critical thinking. If government centered
in to try and tell you what's the truth? I mean, first,
you can't have that in an open society, and also

(04:15):
it's counter productive. Do you believe the government?

Speaker 2 (04:18):
Wow, we all remember the Podium of Truth moment. I guess.
I mean that's a very good point, isn't it. That's
about education and people becoming more media savvy and maybe
more social media savvy.

Speaker 3 (04:31):
Yeah one hundred and that that's something that government can
support but maybe can't actually do in its own right.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
Yeah, well watch the space. I guess. Hey, thanks for
your time. That's Stephen Judd from fact Our TAUROHA. That's
Fight against Conspiracy Theories.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
For more from News Talks B listen live on air
or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you
go with our podcasts on Ieartradio