“I’ll explain what users in Europe risk”

Meta will eliminate fact-checkers, from now on the moderation of the platforms will be entrusted to users, they will report dangerous contentoffensive or violent through community notes. This is in the United States. The company has not yet announced its plans for the European Union, Instagram, Facebook and Threads so they will not change for the citizens of the Union, but it may be a matter of time. Zuckerberg announced the new policies in a video: “Here’s what we’re going to do. First, we’re going to get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X,” he explained.

We must therefore look at X to imagine how Meta’s platforms will transform. The horizon does not promise well. In fact, Elon Musk’s social network has turned into a wild land attractive to extremists, misogynists and racists. A polarized den made of fake news and bad taste memes. And indeed Zuckerberg’s announcement has raised new concerns. The Center for Information Resilience, an organization for monitoring hate speech and disinformation online, explained that community notes will be an “important step back for moderation of content at a time when misinformation and harmful content are evolving faster than ever.”

Union users are currently safe. Regulations like Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act they represent a guarantee. To better understand what they are the prospects and risks for the citizens of the Union we spoke with Brando Benifei, president of the European Parliament delegation for relations with the United States of America.

Mark Zuckerberg has decided to replace professional fact-checkers with users. What changes in practice?

The replacement of fact checkers with user notes entails the removal of responsibility from the platform which delegates, let’s say, to the spirit of the community and the consensus of the community, a verification of the truthfulness or offensiveness or dangerousness of the contents.

What are the risks?

It is clear that this model presents numerous risks and may not comply with European rules which aim to make social platforms safe, protect users from the risk of manipulation or the circulation of hateful and violent content. I believe that the community notes system is not capable of protecting these guarantees.

In doing so, Meta follows the model of

Yes, and indeed the model of X is subject of investigation by the European Commission, and we ask for it to speed up. The European Parliament has been taking initiatives in recent weeks, and this issue also emerged during the commissioners’ hearings. Today it becomes even more urgent to accelerate this implementation work because it seems to be the cornerstone for being able to establish a model different from that of the digital wild west.

And in fact, as we were saying, according to the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, platforms like Meta must prevent the spread of false and misleading information. Are they sufficient as a guarantee?

Then Meta and the other platforms are subject to the law, therefore they must demonstrate that they prevent this spread of false and misleading information. The Commission is carrying out this examinationwe will discuss it with the Commission itself and with Parliament, but personally it seems difficult to me that this system, eliminating any form of responsibility of the platform itself, can be considered sufficient.

Here, according to the European Commission, the new moderation system must undergo a risk assessment before being implemented in the EU. Could it pass the assessment?

I don’t think it can pass the evaluation, and in fact I hope that there is no pressure lobbying for this assessment to be passed. Let us remember that in the past Trump, when he was president of the United States, limited his desire to regulate platforms with duties and hostile actions towards other countries. This is not acceptable to usprotecting the digital space means protecting our democracy. We therefore expect the commission to be rigorous in the assessments that must be made.

Zuckerberg accused the European Union of being a “place of censorship”, is that right?

I find Zuckerberg’s statements ridiculous. The measures that he today defines as “censorship” had been supported, supported, and implemented by Meta itself. Therefore, there seems to be a clear desire for realignment linked to a change in the political frameworkand frankly he gives a very bad image of himself who appears bent to a political will, also disavowing the measures that Meta itself had put in place.

Meta has no immediate plans to end fact-checking in the EU. Could he change his mind?

We should ask Meta, but I think that after Zuckerberg’s video an attempt is plausible. The European Union will have to examine any measure in light of existing rules. Not only the Digital Service Act, but also respect for the gods transparency criteria of the AI ​​Actwhich will come into force soon, in August 2025.

Could Meta apply pressure?

The risk is obvious and it is also legitimate; after all, large companies, like any other organisation, make their point of view known 12 and apply pressure, and can also be particularly pervasive and heavy. It is right for everyone to express their point of view, but it must then be the legislator who decides by weighing the balance and looking at the good of the citizens and the protection of democracy. There are rules in traditional media, there are rules in our society, the web cannot be without it.

Let’s imagine the worst case scenario. What could be the risks for EU users?

In a context where there is a lack of effective legislation, there are various risks. These include the manipulation of contents, the creation of bubbles, of alternative truths, even about facts and which should be incontrovertible, in general an extreme polarization of societya bit like what is happening in the USA which does not have our rules. I think this is very worrying. So it will be essential to enforce the rules.