If Meta abandons fact-checking more widely, staying on Facebook will not be a good look for politicians

AHEAD of US president-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan 20, Big Tech firms have been scrambling to curry favour. Last week, in a sign of the post-truth environment in which Trump is taking office, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of US fact-checking for Facebook and Instagram.

The social media giant will also reduce moderation, newly allowing certain comments that would previously have been considered hate speech.

With these moves, there will be little to stop Meta’s platforms – hardly a haven for accuracy and civil dialogue at the best of times – from veering deeper into misinformation and polarisation.

Accordingly, the decision was met by shock and disapproval from disinformation researchers, civil society groups and politicians, not least outgoing US President Joe Biden.

Granted, the changes apply only to Meta’s platforms in the US – for now. Academics and watchers doubt that it will stop there. The South China Morning Post even reported that the move has sparked fears of a “disinformation crisis in Asia”.

It is perhaps ironic, therefore, that Meta’s platforms apparently remain a significant outreach channel for Singapore’s government.

Ministries, statutory boards and politicians alike regularly make announcements, share information and otherwise engage the public on Facebook and Instagram.

In other words, even as Singapore’s government strives to combat misinformation – not least through the use of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act – it maintains a significant presence on platforms that may be giving up that fight.

And even as politicians stress the importance of harmony and unity, they may end up sharing Facebook feed space with potentially incendiary sentiments.

Of course, in practical terms, Meta’s fact-checking and moderation policies do not affect the Singapore government’s efforts against misinformation and hate speech.

Yet the very act of remaining active and committed on Facebook – even as some users themselves turn away from the platform, as has happened in the wake of Zuckerberg’s announcement – suggests at best a tacit acceptance of Meta’s policies.

One response might be: What choice does the government have? Today, if politicians wish to engage citizens, they have to do so both offline and online – and engaging them online often means meeting them on their preferred platforms.

So even as politicians get on TikTok to woo younger voters, they remain on Facebook to stay in touch with older netizens.

But there is a self-reinforcing aspect to this argument. By remaining on Facebook, government bodies and politicians give citizens an ongoing reason to use the platform, ironically increasing the likelihood that they may be exposed to misinformation.

The harder but potentially healthier choice would be finding better ways to engage, helping to draw citizens away from these environments.

In principle, every social media user – individuals or organisations – must have a personal line in the sand. As a thought experiment, one cannot imagine Singapore’s government maintaining accounts on platforms that actively promote racist opinions, for instance.

For now, Meta’s new policies may not have crossed any lines. But if the environment on its platforms worsens further, government bodies might want to reconsider their continued presence there.