Meta’s recent decision to end fact-checking and replace it with community notes has sparked intense debate. What are the legal implications of this move, and how will it impact online discourse?
Legal Implications
- Statutory Liability: By relying on community notes, Meta may be able to claim immunity under certain legislation which shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content. Such as section 230 (c) (1) of the Communications Decency Act (USA), which provides that – “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”. Other applicable legislations may include; Defamation Act 2013 (UK), The E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) (EU), The National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Code of Practice for Interactive Computer Service Platforms/Internet Intermediaries (Nigeria), etc.
- Defamation and Libel: The lack of fact-checking may lead to an increase in defamatory content, potentially exposing Meta to libel lawsuits.
- Regulatory Scrutiny: This move may attract regulatory attention, particularly in the EU, where platforms are under pressure to combat disinformation.
Popular Concerns
- Disinformation and Misinformation: The absence of fact-checking may lead to the proliferation of false information, potentially harming individuals, communities and society at large.
- Lack of Accountability: Relying on community notes may create a lack of accountability, as users may not be incentivised to provide accurate information.
Conclusion
Meta’s decision to end fact-checking and adopt community notes raises important legal and societal concerns. However, in the face of liberalism, some may argue that it is a step in the right direction.
*Follow us @legalsidepiece.law for daily updates, in-depth analysis and expert opinions on the latest legal trends and news.
LEGAL SIDEPIECE 
Leave a comment