The five disinformation narratives about the war in Ukraine
If Zuckerberg’s dismantling of the Third Party Fact-checking program reaches the EU, what kind of false stories could be allowed to circulate unchecked by professionals?
Organizations that contributed to this investigation: AFP, Correctiv, Demagog.cz, Demagog.pl, Ellinika Hoaxes, Facta, Maldita, Newtral, Polígrafo, Science Feedback, The Journal FactCheck
Enzo Panizio and Tommaso Canetta, the authors of the article, work for Facta, an organization that is part of Meta’s Third Party Fact-checking Program, and a member of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN)
Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decision to dismantle Meta’s Third Party Fact-checking Program (3PFC) in the United States has ignited a wave of criticism and concern, especially as the CEO framed fact-checkers’ work as “censorship” and “politically biased”. Fact-checking networks (like the European Fact-Checking Standard Network and International Fact-Checking Network), the European Digital Media Observatory and independent experts argue that this rhetoric not only misrepresents the role of fact-checkers but also exposes the deeply political motivations behind Meta’s move.
The announcement has raised alarms among journalists, independent observers, and institutions, who see it as a retreat from Meta’s commitment to curbing disinformation. The EFCSN condemned Zuckerberg’s statements, calling them “false and malicious” and warning of the implications of weakening fact-checking systems at a time when election integrity and public trust in information are under increasing threat. The same fact-checking organizations that are part of the Third-Party Fact-checking program explained why it is wrong and “dangerous” to compare it to “censorship” and why the accusation against fact-checkers of being politically biased is baseless.
Meta can remove content, fact-checkers can’t
The Third-Party Fact-checking program (3PFC) works so that when a specific piece of information is debunked through a professional fact-checking analysis that provides evidence of its partial or total falsity, a label is applied to the content on social media, warning users that the claims it contains could be false, according to the work of independent fact-checking organizations. Of course, the labeling of information as false or misleading is only possible for claims and content which can be demonstrated as false through publicly available evidence. In fact, fact-checking labels only provide users with contextual information, not having the power to remove content, which is a prerogative jealously detained by platform owners, who have total control over what to show and what to hide on users’ feeds.
Moreover, Meta’s own data has previously highlighted the success of its fact-checking initiative. According to those data, labels applied to fact-checked posts have been shown to reduce the spread of misinformation significantly, with millions of users choosing not to engage with flagged content. “Between July and December 2023, for example, over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact-checking labels. When a fact-checked label is placed on a post, 95% of people don’t click through to view it”, stated Meta in a communication dated early 2024 referring to its EU market and products. Such a relevant amount of totally or partially false information could flood, without any warnings, the social media feeds, in case the 3PFC is ended also in the European market and equally effective systems are not put in place.
Fact-checkers’ political bias reduced as much as possible
Zuckerberg justified the program’s removal also by alleging that fact-checkers had become “too politically biased”, a claim widely dismissed by experts as unfounded and harmful. The fact-checking organizations that can participate in Meta’s Third-Party Fact-checking program must be members of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or, in Europe, of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN). IFCN and EFCSN set very high standards of political independence and impartiality and strict rules, whose fulfillment by fact-checking organizations is verified through a strict procedure of assessment carried out by independent experts. For example, according to the EFCSN Code, member organizations must not “endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office”, or “conclude any agreement or partnership with a political party”, or “focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum”, or again “employ anyone who holds a salaried and/or prominent position in a political party”. Moreover, all fact-checking articles must undergo “at least one round of editing by someone other than the author before publication”. And so on. All these standards are set up to guarantee a high degree of political independence.
What can happen
So, what would be the impact of the end of the 3PFC in the EU, if Zuckerberg pursued his plan to stop the initiative worldwide? Concretely, what kind of false stories will be allowed to spread through social media feeds (when not directly promoted by the algorithms) without any contextual information provided by professional and recognized fact-checking organizations proving their falsehoods? In this article, we examine and explain a selection of ten disinformation stories that Meta’s European fact-checking program helped mitigate, involving internal crises, elections, climate disasters, pandemics, racist sentiment and various conspiracies. Then we explain why relying exclusively on Community Notes could be problematic, particularly if the disinformation content is about polarizing issues.
10 – Mammograms, “the worst organized crime against women”, and other conspiracies
In November 2023, an alarming post gained traction on Facebook in Croatia, claiming that mammograms were part of “the worst organized crime against women”. The post listed numerous misleading and false statements, including the assertion that mammograms are designed to intentionally harm women rather than detect breast cancer. Fact-checkers from the Croatian Bureau of AFP debunked this narrative, pointing out that no credible scientific evidence supports the claim that mammograms are unsafe or ineffective. On the contrary, peer-reviewed research demonstrates that mammograms remain one of the most effective tools for early cancer detection, saving lives each year.
Similar debunked claims have also questioned self-tests to detect cervical cancer but also promoted supposed cancer cures, like Invermectine or Fenbendazole, despite their effectiveness on human cancer lacks scientific evidence.