Meta Abandons Fact-Checking Unit Amid Concerns of Censorship

The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) fact-checker has been suspended by Meta due to allegations of bias and unfairness regarding the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum. The referendum, which will take place in October, will determine whether an advisory body and recognition of Indigenous people should be enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

Meta stated in a letter to Senator James Paterson, the Shadow Minister for Cyber Security, that they are suspending RMIT as a partner in their fact-checking program in light of these allegations and the upcoming vote on the Voice referendum. They also mentioned that RMIT’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) accreditation has expired. Complaints about possible bias or unfairness by RMIT’s “FactLab” were made to the IFCN.

Meta’s Regional Director of Policy, Mia Garlick, mentioned in the letter that they will review RMIT’s participation in their fact-checking program once the IFCN has considered whether RMIT FactLab’s expired certification should be reinstated.

Senator Paterson initially expressed concerns about interference by a private company in free speech in Australia in a letter to Meta on August 24. He emphasized that Australians’ right to debate this significant constitutional change should not be censored by foreign-headed platforms.

A recent investigation by Sky News revealed allegations of bias by RMIT’s FactLab. It was found that RMIT allowed Meta to block certain news stories and debate about the referendum, violating the media giant’s own rules of impartiality and transparency. Sky News also discovered a $750,000 contract between RMIT and Meta, which facilitated fact-checking through an Irish Meta subsidiary. Furthermore, it was revealed that the contract between the IFCN and RMIT ended in December, as acknowledged by Meta.

RMIT has stated on its website that they are dedicated to combating misinformation and disinformation that can harm people and undermine democratic processes. Their FactLab claims to be transparent, independent, and fully accountable. They provide links to their sources and welcome discussion and feedback. Their staff members are not allowed to be affiliated with political parties or activist groups and are required to disclose any previous affiliations.

Senator Paterson has advocated for other media outlets to follow Meta’s lead and dissociate from RMIT. The investigation by Sky News also revealed that there are 55 fact-checkers with expired credentials from the IFCN, which currently has 107 verified global signatories. As a result, Meta will now rely on news wire services AAP and AFP for fact-checking in Australia after terminating their partnership with RMIT.

In addition to the bias allegations, Senator Paterson highlighted concerns about RMIT’s fact-checking of the full Uluru Statement from the Heart document. RMIT fact-checked media reports on the statement, claiming that it was only one page long and not 26 pages. However, papers obtained through a Freedom of Information request revealed the existence of a 26-page full statement, including future steps towards reconciliation and reparations to Indigenous communities. Senator Paterson criticized this fact-check and stressed that the substance of the Uluru statement should not be restricted on Meta’s platform.

Senator Paterson has requested a full explanation from Meta regarding the fact-checker’s interference with freedom of speech. He also seeks reassurances from Meta that they will not further suppress legitimate public debate. He reminded Meta of their acknowledgement that the censorship surrounding the origins of COVID-19 went too far during the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through social media.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was compiled by 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders after the 2017 National Constitution Convention. It recommends the introduction of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which would require a constitutional change. Proponents of a “Yes” vote argue that this is the best way to address issues within Indigenous communities, while opponents claim that a “Yes” vote will divide the country along racial lines. An announcement regarding the start of voting in the referendum is expected in South Australia, which is a key battleground for the “Yes” vote.



Source link