Nick Clegg has strongly supported Meta’s decision to downgrade the social media platform’s moderation and remove fact-checkers.
The changes to Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, including a shift to promote more political content, were announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month.
Clegg, who is stepping down from the tech company after six years to make room for Joel Kaplan, who leans towards Donald Trump, refuted claims that Meta was diminishing its commitment to truth.
After newsletter promotion
“Please look at what Meta has announced. Ignore the noise, the politics, and the drama that accompanies it,” he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, describing the new policy as “limited and tailored.” He asserted that.
The former UK deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader stated: “There are still 40,000 people dedicated to safety and content moderation, and this year we will again invest $5 billion (£4 billion) a year in platform integrity. We still maintain the most advanced community standards in the industry.”
Clegg mentioned that Meta’s new community notes system, replacing its fact-checker, will resemble the one used by Elon Musk’s competing social media platform X, and will first be launched in the United States.
He described it as a “crowdsourcing or Wikipedia-style approach to misinformation” and suggested it might be “more scalable” than the fact-checkers that he believes have lost the public’s trust.
Zuckerberg, who has been collaborating closely with President Trump recently, simply aims to refine Meta’s content moderation approach, according to Clegg.
During a roundtable discussion with journalists at a ski resort in Switzerland, Mr. Clegg confirmed that he would not tolerate using the Meta platform in the future, forbidding the use of derogatory terms for groups of people or labeling LGBT individuals as “mentally ill.” Numerous expressions previously allowed were challenged.
Mr. Clegg continued to defend this stance, stating at an event in Davos: “It seems inconceivable to us that individuals can say things in Congress or traditional media that they cannot say on social media. Therefore, some significant adjustments were made.”
He emphasized that speech targeting individuals in a manner designed to intimidate or harass remains unacceptable.
Source: www.theguardian.com
