There’s been some hand-wringing in the news since Zuckerberg announced this week that Meta would no longer do “fact-checking” and would re-enable news content in user feeds.
MAGA fans love it – including Mr. MAGA himself, Donald Trump, who seems absolutely gleeful that Zuckerberg is bending the knee to Trump now.
Democrats think it’s awful. They say it will make Meta full on conspiracy theories, lies, fake news and false information.
Yawn.
I’ve read various fact-checks online before. Some seem to be helpful. Some less so. I’ve noticed that all media sites have biases which is reflected in their content.
If you’re looking for the truth online, you are bound to be disappointed. Sites publish for many reasons. #1 is self interest – ie. money. They will say and do whatever is expedient to ensure the money keeps flowing into them.
AI multiplies this by 1000x. Now, instead of just text and image manipulation, we are inundated with audio and video fakes.
I don’t look for “facts” on social media. I look for information that I need and then use my best judgement to discern what seems truthful.
Something that helps me is avoiding all clickbait. If a headline or link seems click baity, I move on. There are better sources for me to try to glean a nugget of information from.
As for Meta – I’ve never considered it a source of information. Aside from a few test accounts to see if I was missing something, I have never maintained a Meta (or Facebook) account. The only time I look at it is when it is the only site for a business or organization I use (some dog rescues and niche user groups unfortunately rely on it).
As for fact checking – if I think I need to fact check someone, I’m better of not hearing whatever they have to say in the first place.