{"id":10627,"date":"2025-01-24T17:34:36","date_gmt":"2025-01-24T16:34:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=10627"},"modified":"2025-01-24T17:44:28","modified_gmt":"2025-01-24T16:44:28","slug":"who-in-the-balkans-is-celebrating-metas-distancing-from-fact-checking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2025\/01\/24\/who-in-the-balkans-is-celebrating-metas-distancing-from-fact-checking\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThe best Christmas gift humanity could get\u201d: Who in the Balkans is celebrating Meta\u2019s distancing from fact-checking?\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

By: Tijana Cvjeti\u0107anin<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Meta is introducing major changes in how it treats misinformation and hate speech on its platforms, in the name of protecting free speech. So who in the region is rejoicing in this \u201cnext chapter\u201d that Mark Zuckerberg announced? Spoiler: politicians known for curbing media freedoms, tabloids that operate as tools of government propaganda and conspiracy theorists who endanger the lives of millions with their denial of scientific facts.    <\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 7th, Mark Zuckerberg<\/strong>, CEO and owner of Meta announced<\/a> that in 2025 the company will be ending its Third Party Fact-Checking Program (TPFC) in the United States  and introducing looser content moderation worldwide. \u201cFirst, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X, starting in the US<\/em>\u201d, Zuckerberg said in his video address, claiming that fact-checkers have been \u201ctoo politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor<\/em>,\u201d wrote Joel Kaplan<\/strong>, Meta\u2019s new Chief Global Affairs Officer, in a press release accompanying Zuckerberg\u2019s address. While Zuckerberg himself also talked about censorship, he hasn\u2019t explicitly linked it to the TPFC at that time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact-checking community immediately responded to the unfounded accusations, refuting the claims of bias and censorship, pointing out the political motifs behind the decision and especially the way it was presented to the public. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Angie Drobnic Holan<\/strong>, The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) director, stated<\/a> that it is \u201cunfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters. Factcheckers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction<\/em>,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) also responded within hours<\/a>, expressing disappointment with Meta\u2019s decision and strongly condemning statements linking fact-checking with censorship. Fact-checkers are held to the highest journalistic standards of non-biased reporting, transparency, integrity and accountability, with organisations like the EFCSN upholding these standards through an independently conducted audit, EFCSN\u2019s press release read. Clara Jim\u00e9nez Cruz<\/strong>, the network\u2019s chair, said that \u201cThis seems more a politically motivated move made in the context of the incoming administration of Donald Trump in the United States than an evidence-based decision\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 9, IFCN published an open letter to Zuckerberg<\/a>, reminding him why the program was started in the first place and how it \u201chelped protect millions of users from hoaxes and conspiracy theories<\/em>\u201d. The letter, signed by more than 100 fact-checking outlets, stresses that freedom of expression is one of the primary values of fact-checking journalism, as noted in the joint statement the IFCN signatories published at the 2024 GlobalFact summit in Sarajevo<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zuckerberg, however, doubled down in his January 10 appearance on \u201cJoe Rogan Experience\u201d podcast where he repeated, almost word-for-word, some of the right-wing talking points<\/a> about \u201ccensorship\u201d used to attack the TPFC program in the past years. He claimed that 2016 US elections and Covid-19 pandemic brought Meta under a \u201cmassive institutional pressure to basically start censoring content on ideological grounds<\/em>\u201d and described the TPFC as an exercise <\/em>that resembled \u201csomething out of 1984<\/em>\u201d, referring to a famous George Orwell\u2019s authoritarian dystopia where the government controls every aspect of public discourse and even tries to censor people\u2019s thoughts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The basis for this comparison with the most extreme form of censorship? Mostly the fact-checkers\u2019 decisions on \u201cjust what types of things they chose to even go and fact check-in the first place,\u201d according to Zuckerberg. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fuel to the fire<\/h2>\n\n\n\n


Harassment of fact-checkers is a growing problem worldwide. As 2023 study<\/a> documents, the participation in the TPFC program is one of the main factors that made the harassment worse in times of any crisis or \u201chigh temperature\u201d information environment; be it the pandemic, wars, natural disasters or elections. And there was no lack of crisis in the past years. The Covid-19 pandemic saw many social networks\u2019 users radicalized by conspiratorial narratives like QAnon, or various \u201cplandemic\u201d conspiracies that particularly plagued the SEE region<\/a>. Fact-checkers featured prominently as \u201cco-conspirators\u201d in many such narratives. The propaganda used to justify Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine brought about another wave of attacks on fact-checkers who debunked their wild stories about \u201cUS biolabs<\/a>\u201d, or about Ukraine preparing a nuclear attack against Russia.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The accusations of politically motivated censorship has been the main tool (successfully) used to instigate all attacks on fact-checkers in each of these crisis, ranging from violent threats, trolling campaigns, \u201cdoxing\u201d and hacking attacks, to frivolous lawsuits, stalking and even public protests in front of fact-checkers’ offices, as described in the 2023 study on harassment of fact-checkers in Europe<\/a> published by Faktograf and the International Press Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The narrative about the \u201ccensorship industrial complex<\/a>\u201d – a conspiracy theory about a collusion of the US Democratic party, tech companies and various actors from academic researchers to George Soros to suppress conservative viewpoints – has targeted primarily the US-based fact-checkers, but also encouraged such attacks around the world. Many IFCN signatories have warned that the language used by Zuckerberg and Kaplan in their 2025 announcements will encourage and exacerbate these attacks. It did not take long for that to materialize in the SEE region. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that this line of attack on TPFC partners has now been legitimized by the company that created the very program has, indeed, been received by the perpetrators of harassment as a vindication and a motivation to reinvigorate their attacks. Clickbait media, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination activists, climate change deniers, scammers and, last but not least, political actors infamous for media censorship, all went into jubilation – some within minutes after Zuckerberg\u2019s announcement. And the way the news was reported in the region, for a start, took the claims made by Meta leadership even further from the truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many media in the region have left out one significant piece of information when they reported on Zuckerberg\u2019s announcements about the TPFC. By omitting the \u201cstarting in the US\u201d part, they created an impression that the program is immediately ending in the region. This prompted an avalanche of gleeful comments about \u201cthe end of fact-checking\u201d and\/or the \u201cliberation of Facebook<\/a>\u201c, like the one seen in Montenegro-based IN4S<\/a>, a prominent source of Russian propaganda in the region. Some proclaimed that specific fact-checking outlets, like Bosnian Raskrinkavanje, are being \u201cshut down<\/a>\u201d. Others offered distorted \u201cexplanations\u201d of the news, claiming<\/a>, for example, that the company announced that \u201cfact-checkers will no longer delete content and, instead, the posts will only have warnings below, the way it already works on X<\/em>\u201d (to be fair, the way that TPFC was lumped in with content moderation in Joel Kaplan\u2019s text, could mislead a less careful reader to conclude that Meta\u2019s fact-checking program was somehow connected to content takedowns, which is not the case). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then there were those who were well aware that fact-checkers never had the power to remove any content – given that they have been fact-checked for misinformation they published dozens of times. Some, like Alternativna televizija, used the opportunity to repeat false accusations<\/a> of being \u201ctargeted and subjected to political pressures\u201d by fact-checkers, or to launch personal attacks in their jubilant \u201creporting\u201d on the news. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: ATV article titled \u201cThe end for \u201craskrinkavanja\u201d: Too politically biased<\/em>\u201d and IN4S post saying \u201cFacebook is being liberated! Fact-checkers are abolished<\/em>!\u201d.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unsurprisingly, the most aggressive attacks came from tabloids and fringe websites that publish conspiracy theories. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA STICK IN THE MEDIA HEART OF DARKNESS<\/a>\u201d, exclaimed the headline published in  \u201cInformer\u201c, a Serbian tabloid infamous for the disinformation, hate speech and political propaganda<\/a> it peddles. In a manner typical for its hit-pieces, Informer illustrated the article with photos of Ra\u0161a Nedeljkov<\/strong> from Istinomer<\/a> (one of the Meta\u2019s two TPFC partner in Serbia, the other being AFP \u010cinjenice), but also of Stevan Doj\u010dinovi\u0107<\/strong>, the editor of Krik<\/a>, an investigative journalism non-profit and Tamara Skrozza<\/strong>, journalist of Cenzolovka<\/a>, who was subjected to an extensive lynch-campaign<\/a> in Informer and other pro-government media in 2024. While Krik does have a fact-checking project (SEE Check member Raskrikavanje<\/a>), neither them or Cenzolovka participate in the TPFC program. All three media have, however, been repeatedly attacked by the ruling party as traitors backed by Soros, CIA and other \u201cenemies of the Serbs\u201d.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lumping them together on account of being \u201cmedia tyrants\u201d, Informer described Zuckerberg\u2019s decision as \u201ctheir worst nightmare coming true<\/em>\u201d, signaling the end of the alleged \u201cgodlike\u201d status of fact-checkers and the \u201cmedia censorship inspired by the deadly woke ideology<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot of Informer article<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It wasn\u2019t long before the members of the ruling SNS party also used this news as another opportunity to attack, in bulk, the few remaining independent media in Serbia, the country with a near-total media capture, where it is already almost impossible to find a television channel that is not all praise for Serbian president and his policies. The representatives of the same government that has been steadily eroding media freedoms over the past decade praised this \u201chistoric movement towards free speech\u201d, without a shred of irony. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is, in fact, how Serbia\u2019s president Aleksandar Vu\u010di\u0107 <\/strong>described<\/a> Zuckerberg\u2019s announcement – as a historic event that \u201cbrings<\/em> hope for normal people everywhere<\/em>\u201d and the biggest change the world has seen since WWII, or at least \u201csince the fall of the Berlin Wall<\/em>\u201d. Vu\u010di\u0107, infamous for his attacks on independent media and freedom of speech, gave Donald Trump<\/strong> and Elon Musk<\/strong> credit for this \u201cdeep structural change in the bloodstream of the world<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why is the decision so significant in the eyes of Vu\u010di\u0107? Because, he said, the fact-checkers \u201cliterally ruined\u201d any media that claimed there was no genocide in Srebrenica. Not just that – in his words, accounts, posts, profiles \u201cand anything else that goes in Serbia\u2019s favor<\/em>\u201d was taken down by these \u201ccensors\u201d. Expanding on Informer\u2019s catalogue of \u201cmedia tyrants\u201d, Vu\u010di\u0107 added CINS and BIRN to the list of the \u201cworst liars ever\u201d (fronted by Istinomer<\/a>) who operate \u201cunder a broad umbrella of some Western intelligence agencies<\/em>\u201d – the usual line of attack used throughout the region to discredit independent media and civil society organizations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot \/ YouTube<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a piece titled \u201cGoodbye, fact-checkers\u201d, published in \u201cKurir\u201d, Vladimir \u0110ukanovi\u0107<\/strong>, an MP from Vu\u010di\u0107\u2019s SNS party, shared<\/a> both his enthusiasm and the view of Zuckerberg\u2019s move as historic. \u201cThe humanity could not have received a better news this Christmas than the confession made by Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Meta, about their products like Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp censoring the freedom of expression and (the announcement) that they will not continue doing that in the future<\/em>,\u201d said \u0110ukanovi\u0107, known for radical right-wing views and vocal support for Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine. \u0110ukanovi\u0107 added a few of his own false claims about the program for good measure – for example, that it was \u201cunder a full control of the US Democrats, who shamelessly determined who can in fact be a fact-checker\u201d<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that the news broke on January 7th, a day when Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas, also did not escape Mario Boji\u0107<\/strong>, a social media personality who monetizes conspiracy theories under his moniker \u201cMario zna\u201d and on \u201cNulta Ta\u010dka<\/a>\u201d, a fake news website he launched during the Covid-19 pandemic. In a video posted on X<\/a> right after Zuckerberg\u2019s announcement that he called \u201ca Christmas miracle\u201d, Boji\u0107 repeats the false claims about fact-checkers as censors who were repressing the freedom of speech and calls them \u201cNGO NATO vaxers from Istinomer, Raskrinkavanje and other pathetic \u2018newsrooms\u2019 financed by Soros<\/em>\u201d, touching upon conspiratorial narratives about George Soros<\/strong> as a shadow puppetmaster working against governments in the region – or one of the creators of the \u201cplandemic\u201d (depending on which \u201cschool\u201d of conspiracy theories one prefers).

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dnevni Avaz<\/a>, widely known for publishing falsehoods<\/a> and political propaganda, focused on the executive director of Za\u0161to ne<\/em> (Raskrinkavanje<\/a>\/Istinomjer<\/a>), who was dubbed Avaz\u2019s \u201cperson of the day\u201d. A hit piece titled \u201cDarko Brkan: The racketeers’ days are over<\/em>\u201d claims that the paper was subjected to \u201cvengeance\u201d by fact-checkers and that Zuckerberg\u2019s confirmation of what they have been \u201csaying for years\u201d makes this \u201cone of the happiest days for the media<\/em>\u201d. The author offers a barely intelligible explanation of what said vengeance entailed, claiming that the fact-checkers\u2019 analysis \u201chad the intention of lowering the reach and the cause-and-effect for lowering the visits<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper has launched harassment and intimidation campaigns<\/a> against Raskrinkavanje and Za\u0161to ne in the past, including a violent threat<\/a> that triggered a broader conversation about this problem in the fact-checking community that led to the launch of IFCN\u2019s anti-harassment working group<\/a>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot of Avaz article<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A stream of similar personal attacks was seen from conspiracy theorists, \u201ccorona influencers\u201d and similar actors in other countries as well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Croatia, conspiratorial websites celebrated \u201cthe end of fact-checking\u201d much like their counterparts in the neighbouring countries, by praises for Zuckerberg\u2019s \u201cconfessions\u201d, falsehoods about TPFC as censorship<\/a>, or claims that the local TPFC partner, Faktograf, is \u201cshutting down<\/a>\u201d. Many also used the opportunity to launch yet another round of a lynch-campaign that has been targeting<\/a> the staff of Faktograf<\/a> for years, focusing particularly on Faktograf\u2019s former editor-in-chief Petar Vidov<\/strong>. No one was, perhaps, more thorough in their incitement to harassment than Nenad Baki\u0107<\/strong><\/a>, an entrepreneur that has been leading similar harassment campaigns<\/a> and hitting Faktograf with lawsuits since they debunked<\/a> several of his false claims about the Covid-19 pandemic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather expectedly, Baki\u0107 once again lashed out against Faktograf, repeating similar \u201cdog whistles\u201d he used multiple times before to incite harassment against the fact-checker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDoes anyone think the \u2018fact-checkers\u2019 do this out of their love for the truth?\u201d, <\/em>reads one post. \u201cSometimes I think that, apart from the strong ideological indoctrination (…) an important motivator for persons who do fact-checking (what kind of person do you have to be to do that job?) is ENVY. Years of meaningless existence on some small salary and suddenly you have mean money and the power to abuse others. What do you think, does that make sense<\/em>?”, reads another, paired – as per usual – with a photograph of Petar Vidov. In yet another in a series of posts, he cynically uses the wording of TPFC labels like disinformation <\/em>and missing context<\/em>, in a comparison of fact-checkers to guards in concentration camps: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDo you agree with disgusting, unjust accusations (disinformation, missing context) that the same envious, frustrated personality structure is found in the guards in concentration camps and in ‘fact-checkers’? I’m only writing this to check whether people are falling for such disinformation that are missing context<\/em>.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
 Image: Screenshots of Facebook posts <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In North Macedonia, Gordana Godjo<\/strong><\/a>, an antivaccination conspiracy theorists and a leader of pro-Russian right wing party \u201cRodina\u201d (Motherland), commented<\/a> on the news saying that she already knew that Joe Biden – whom she calls a paedophile – was the one that \u201cordered Zuckerberg to delete profiles and memes<\/em>\u201d. Calling her followers to never forget \u201cwhat kind of values the \u2018democrats\u2019 have advocated and who supported them in our beautiful Macedonia. And not to forget that censorship, especially about vaccines, led to horrific health consequences and mortality of people<\/em>\u201d, Godjo added: \u201cFact-checkers, here\u2019s your chance to fact-check me. Hurry up, your end is near\u201d<\/em>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a region leading in SLAPPs, calls for more legal harassment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – lawsuits that are typically launched to prevent journalists from reporting on a specific person, organization or a topic. The region is already a \u201cleader\u201d when it comes to SLAPPs against fact-checkers (see page 22 in the 2023 study of harassment of fact-checkers in Europe<\/a>). We are now seeing another spike of rallying cries to continue that type of legal harassment all over the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mirnes Ajanovi\u0107<\/strong>, a lawyer and a politician from BiH with a large social media following, has sued both Bosnian fact-checking outlets and boasted about trying to bring criminal charges<\/a> against fact-checkers from several countries for debunking antivaccination conspiracy theories during the Covid-19 pandemic. In response to the news – and in line with the widespread narrative of fact-checkers as \u201cmercenaries\u201d – Ajanovi\u0107 interpreted Zuckerberg\u2019s announcement as fact-checkers\u2019 owners<\/em> throwing them under a bus after the \u201cevildoing\u201d and \u201chuman rights violations\u201d they committed. In one of his posts, he quotes Zuckerberg\u2019s statements as \u201cAnother evidence that our fight against anticovid terror was justified\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ajanovi\u0107 repeatedly<\/a> posted<\/a> calls for the fact-checkers to now be \u201cjudged in the court of the public without censorship\u201d and referred to his ongoing lawsuits against Istinomjer and Raskrinkavanje by saying that \u201cthe judge who unlawfully tried to protect them will also be held responsible! Nobody will have the right to show them any mercy!<\/em>\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea that fact-checkers should be put on trial – real or symbolic – was a focus of many conspiracy theorists who claimed that fact-checking during the pandemic was a \u201ccrime against humanity\u201d because it stuck to scientific evidence about the virus and the vaccines. Some even claimed that such trials are already commencing in Nuremberg, drawing parallels with trials of Nazi officials. It was one of the main dehumanizing narratives that antivaccination conspiracy theorists used to instigate harassment against the fact-checkers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFaktograf, Raskrinkavanje and other mercenaries should be investigated, sued and sentenced for everything they have done to the alternative media and individuals<\/em>\u201d, reads an anonymous text published in \u201cLogi\u010dno<\/a>\u201d, one of the most active conspiratorial websites in the region. \u201cThe members of these criminal organizations should be forced to personally pay for all the damage they have done. Soros can give them the loan,<\/em>\u201d the text continues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot of Logi\u010dno article<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In North Macedonia<\/a> fact-checkers have also been exposed to significant harassment over the years. After the news of Zuckerberg\u2019s announcement broke, the first to react were members of anti-vaccination and pro-Kremlin groups with comments such as \u2018now is the time to finish them off\u2019, says Filip Stojanovski<\/strong>, partnership and resource development director at Metamophosis Foundation. \u201cThen came a wave of implicit threats and gloating about the supposed demise of fact-checkers in some commercial media outlets who had acted as propaganda tools for populist parties in the past. Some published photos and names of the whole Metamorphosis staff – a tactic used in previous campaigns of defamation and intimidation aimed at incitement of hatred and violence<\/em>\u201d Stojanovski says, adding that they already started receiving SLAPP lawsuits threats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot of off.net.mk article illustration juxtaposing photos of Metamorphosis’ staff and Meta owner Mark Zuckerberg<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In one of the more bizarre examples, FakeNews Traga\u010d, a SEE Check member based in Novi Sad, received a request to remove a four years old article<\/a>, under a threat of legal action, just a few days after Zuckerberg\u2019s announcements.  The article in question was about an \u201cendorsement\u201d of Nikola Sandulovi\u0107<\/strong> for Serbian president (Sandulovi\u0107 is a founder of an obscure Serbian Republican party and one of the most aggressive peddlers of QAnon conspiracies in the region). The anonymous request came from \u201cRich TVX\u201d, a website which poses as a US-based news media and uses stock photos to create its fictional newsroom\u2019s staff. The initial email was followed by others, seeking help from the US Embassy and accusing FakeNews Traga\u010d<\/a> of working for the Serbian or Russian government against Sandulovi\u0107 – who has been known to pull similar stunts before, and\/or directly incite harassment against fact-checkers<\/a> on his accounts on social media.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Screenshot<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But how do we know that there is no \u201ccensorship and bias\u201d in TPFC?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To fact-checkers who participate in the TPFC, the picture Zuckerberg and Kaplan painted has no resemblance to the reality of the program. For a start, the TPFC partners were never made aware that the company has any issues with their alleged political bias. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNone of the Meta representatives has ever raised any issues of bias in fact-checking, neither to us or anyone else from the SEE Check network. On the contrary – every communication with Meta was complimentary about our work<\/em>\u201d, said <\/em>Darvin Muri\u0107<\/strong> from Raskrinkavanje<\/a>, Meta\u2019s fact-checking partner from Montenegro. \u201cThat is why the accusations of bias deeply shocked and disappointed us. It is obvious that there is no evidence behind such accusations, but only political pressure coming from the incoming American administration\u201d, <\/em>Muri\u0107 said for SEE Check.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the community holds values of both impartiality and freedom of expression in high regard. As pointed out by Angie Drobnic Holan, the \u201cfact checkers used by Meta follow a Code of Principles that requires impartiality and transparency\u201d <\/em>– which, in practice, means that a fact-checker has to be verified by either IFCN or EFCSN to become Meta’s partner. Botj verifications require the applicant to present evidence of nonpartisanship and adherence to the principles\/standards of the networks\u2019 codes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Klodiana Kapo<\/strong>, from Albanian TPFC partner Faktoje<\/a>, explained for SEE Check how the evaluation process works: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEvery year we undergo an evaluation of our adherence to IFCN Code of Principles, i.e. the highest journalistic standards among which impartiality and objectivity in our work is one of the most important. As part of the evaluation, we select a sample of fact-checks that demonstrate that we approach statements and claims from both the government and the opposition, and from both liberal and conservative actors, equally. External evaluators read both the sample we selected and our entire platform to ensure that there are no biases and that we always adhere to the highest standards, regardless of whose claims we are evaluating.<\/em>\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The applications are additionally scrutinized by the IFCN Advisory Board \/ EFCSN Governance Board, whose members vote on fact-checkers\u2019 applications after reading the assessors\u2019 evaluations. This ensures that new members can be verified only if they fulfill the strict criteria of IFCN Code of Principles or EFCSN Code of Standards (find details here<\/a>) and that existing members can remain \u201ccertified\u201d only if they keep up with the requirements of the fact-checking networks\u2019 respective codes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the accusations of censorship enacted by fact-checkers, the very policies of the platform that created and enacted the TPFC program have made it virtually impossible. The program was never envisioned as a content removal tool and the TPFC partners couldn\u2019t have \u201ccensored\u201d anyone even if they wanted to. \u201cFact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts<\/em>\u201d, said Angie Drobnic Holan<\/strong> in her statement – \u201cit\u2019s added information and context to controversial claims, and it\u2019s debunked hoax content and conspiracy theories\u201d<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meta\u2019s partners were taken aback by the allegations. In a statement<\/a> from Faktograf, its director Ana Brakus<\/strong> stressed that \u201cOrganizations like Faktograf, adhering to professional standards, have provided additional context to information circulating on Meta’s platforms in their articles, and decisions about what content to remove, and in what ways to regulate it, have always been made solely by Meta. As far as we know, content has never been removed simply because fact-checkers checked it for accuracy.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donald Trump acknowledged that the decision came after his threats<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The statements from Zuckerberg and Kaplan stand in stark contrast to the attitudes that Meta\u2019s officials previously expressed. In his 2021 Hearing Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce<\/a>, Zuckerberg boasted about creating \u201can industry-leading fact-checking program\u201d, emphasized that Meta\u2019s fact-checking partners are \u201ccertified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network\u201d and stated that his company does more to address misinformation than any other company. Zuckerberg explicitly voiced how proud he was \u201cof the teams and systems we have built\u201d, before going into a detailed description of how Meta handled Covid-19 and election misinformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Image: Transcript of Zuckerberg\u2019s 2021 testimony in the
Hearing Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, March 25, 2021<\/a> (screenshot). <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

So, why abandon a program that was showcased as a major success in improving information integrity on the company\u2019s platforms? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proud accomplishments from 2021 became a point of regret in 2025 not because the TPFC has since \u201cdeveloped\u201d a censorship or political bias problem, but because the political momentum in the US has changed. Distancing from its fact-checking program and US fact-checkers in particular is, in fact, one in a series of moves<\/a> that the company appears to be taking to appease the US president elect Donald Trump, who is about to start his second term in office. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump himself welcomed<\/a> Meta TPFC changes in a press conference the same day they were announced, saying that he thinks they have \u201cprobably\u201d been enacted due to threats he\u2019s made to Zuckerberg in the past. In August 2024, quotes from Trump\u2019s book \u201cSave America\u201d were published where he accuses Zuckerberg of secretly \u201cplotting\u201d against him and threatens him<\/a> with \u201clife in prison\u201d if he does anything that Trump might consider illegal in the November presidential elections.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump’s accounts on Meta\u2019s platforms were suspended<\/a> on January 7 2021 for \u201chis praise for people engaged in violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021\u201d. In January 2023, after he announced he will run in the presidential elections again, Trump was allowed back on Facebook. The relationship started thawing much faster after Trump won the elections. In November 2024, Zuckerberg had dinner<\/a> with president-elect Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort, soon to be followed by a $1.000.000 donation<\/a> to Trump\u2019s Inaugural Fund. Shortly after, Meta replaced<\/a> its head of global policy Nick Clegg<\/strong> with Joel Kaplan, a prominent Republican who previously handled relations<\/a> between Meta and the Republican Party. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just a day before Zuckerberg \u201cdisowned\u201d the TPFC program of Meta\u2019s own making, the company has announced<\/a> the appointment of three new board members, among them the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and close Donald Trump ally Dana White<\/strong>. In addition to \u201cgetting rid of fact-checkers\u201d, Meta announced several changes in content moderation policies, including loosening up the very definitions and guidelines<\/a> on hate speech about gender and immigration, topics that the US right-wing politics see as pivotal in the \u201cwoke movement\u201d (that has itself served as a precursor for actual censorship<\/a> in education curricula in some states in the US). The changes were announced along with a pledge to show more political content to Meta\u2019s platforms\u2019 users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In yet another nod to the Republican White House and Congress, the company announced that the teams reviewing US-based content will be moved out of California and into Texas – in other words, transferred from a \u201cblue state\u201d that has voted Democratic in the past eight presidential elections, to a \u201cred state\u201d that hasn\u2019t elected a Democrat candidate since 1976. \u201cAs we work to promote free expression, I think that will help us build trust to do this work in places where there is less concern about the bias of our teams<\/em>\u201d, Kaplan wrote in his January 7 announcement.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adding to the stream of company\u2019s signals to the new US political majority, on January 14, the news broke that Zuckerberg will attend Trump\u2019s inauguration ceremony<\/a> and cohost a reception for Donald Trump\u2019s inauguration<\/a> shortly before the inaugural balls. Indeed, the line-up of tech-billioners<\/a> most notably Zuckerberg, Amazon\u2019s Jeff Bezos<\/strong> and Elon Musk<\/strong>, the owner of X\/Twitter and Trump\u2019s recent close confidant and advisor, was one of the most striking from Trump\u2019s inaugural ceremony. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image: Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Sundar Pichai<\/strong> (Google) and Elon Musk (X\/Tesla\/SpaceX) arrive at Donald Trump\u2019s inauguration (AP Photo\/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Pool). <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Within the first 24h of his second term, Trump issued multiple executive orders<\/a>, among them one titled \u201cRestoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship<\/a>\u201d. While it does not mention fact-checking specifically, the document states that the previous US government has censored free speech on online platforms \u201coften by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve<\/em>. Under the guise of combatting \u201cmisinformation,\u201d \u201cdisinformation,\u201d and \u201cmalinformation,\u201d the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government\u2019s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All things considered, Zuckerberg\u2019s accusation of political bias against fact-checkers rings as a hypocrisy, Emir Zulejhi\u0107<\/strong>, program coordinator at Bosnian Raskrinkavanje<\/a>, said<\/a> for Balkan investigative reporting network (BIRN) after the news about Meta\u2019s change of course regarding the TPFC broke. Ana Brakus described Meta’s decision as one that goes against the interest of its users. “The messages recently sent by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg show that attacks on the media have succeeded and democratic and election processes are under an increasingly open jeopardy worldwide. Given the political situation in the US, Zuckerberg made a primarily business decision for the short-term profit of his company<\/em>,” said Brakus, adding that it is now ever so important that the EU institutions insist on its regulatory framework and \u201cnot allow the US big tech monopolies to do whatever they want in our digital space<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the way forward for Europe – Western Balkans included?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Just a year and a half ago, the company expressed enthusiastic support for Digital Services Act (DSA)<\/a>, a pivotal piece of legislation in the EU’s regulatory framework for Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMeta has long advocated for a harmonised regulatory regime that effectively protects people\u2019s rights online, while continuing to enable innovation. For this reason, we welcome the ambition for greater transparency, accountability and user empowerment that sits at the heart of regulations like the DSA, GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive<\/em>,\u201d <\/em>wrote the then chief of global affairs, Nick Clegg. \u201cThe DSA in particular provides greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of online platforms and it is right to seek to hold large platforms like ours to account through things like reporting and auditing, rather than attempting to micromanage individual pieces of content<\/em>,\u201d Clegg continued in an announcement of Meta\u2019s measures of compliance with the DSA. The piece finishes with an unequivocal commitment to this \u201cshared vision\u201d: \u201cA strong and open digital single market is of vital importance to the competitiveness of Europe as a whole, and we will continue to work closely with European policymakers and regulators in support of this shared vision<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zuckerberg\u2019s January 7 address was not just a pivot, but a full 180 from where the company stood before the US 2024 Presidential Elections. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world. They’re going after American companies and pushing to censor more,<\/em>\u201d Zuckerberg said. Once praised for its comprehensive legislative framework that fosters competitiveness, the EU was now added to the \u201ccatalogue\u201d of censors presented out by Meta\u2019s CEO. \u201cEurope has an ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship, and making it difficult to build anything innovative there<\/em>\u201d, Zuckerberg said, seemingly expressing relief to finally have a US administration willing to protect the big tech: \u201cThe only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government, and that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the US government has pushed for censorship<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This discourse comes dangerously close to the narratives of those who actively oppose any action against disinformation, not because they support free speech, but because they aim to suppress it. T<\/strong>hese are usually the same actors that try to intimidate journalists, especially fact-checkers, and it can be assumed that they will interpret a statement like this as an encouragement for such actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we have seen play out in the region confirms these concerns. Meta\u2019s fact-checking partnership is one of the rare programs that produced tangible results in fighting disinformation and improving information integrity online, as noted in SEE Check\u2019s report on the state of disinformation in 2023<\/a>. \u201cThe corrections mechanism, for example, has made a significant impact in countries where media accountability for veracity of published content was severely lacking<\/em>,\u201d reads the report, referring to the part of the program that allows the fact-checkers to remove the label if the publisher corrects the inaccurate claim that has been fact-checked. In such cases, Meta would return the visibility and reach of the content to the state it had before the fact-check. This has prompted dozens of media to issue comprehensive, public corrections of misinformation they previously published – a practice that took a number of media corrections from almost zero to several hundreds, or even thousands, in some of the countries in the region. As the report points out:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe program, it can be concluded, did not influence the inner workings and motivations of many of commercial media in the region in the sense of improving their accountability to the readers: many of the same outlets continue to publish the same or similar problematic content, arguably because they are able to reap the same rewards from online platforms. It did, however, put in place incentives to correct the falsehoods that were published – provided they are spotted and labelled within the TPFC – and possibly to restrain from publishing outright fabrications. The motives of the media for this are purely financial, but some of the results are palpable and measurable nonetheless<\/em>.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it is those exact results that have exposed fact-checkers from the region to even more hostility than before they entered the TPFC program. So, backlash against fact-checking is not new. The question now is how far will things in this new phase go and what are the steps to at least maintain the progress made in the past years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 16, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)<\/a> have sent an open letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen<\/strong>, asking her to \u201cprevent the implementation, in the European Union (EU), of the unilateral decisions recently taken by the company Meta concerning the termination of its third-party fact-checking program and, if necessary, to initiate all measures, including sanctions, provided for by the Digital Services Act (DSA)<\/em>\u201d. In a letter signed by EFJ director Renate Schroeder<\/strong> and RSF director Thibaut Bruttin<\/strong>, it is emphasized that more systemic measures, in addition to DSA, are necessary to \u201cguarantee EU citizens\u2019 right to effective access to a plurality of reliable sources of information on social media platforms<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMeta\u2019s decision to \u201cget rid\u201d of fact checkers in the US is a clear sign that the world is entering a new era<\/em>,\u201d said Faik Ispahiu <\/strong>from Kosovo\u2019s TPFC partner Krypomet\u00ebr<\/a>. \u201cI am afraid that this decision will not only harm millions of people using the company\u2019s platforms – ultimately it will harm Meta itself, because it was exactly fact-checkers that provided the bare minimum of information accuracy in a virtual world that today has become very much real<\/em>\u201d, he adds. Ispahiu also sees the EU as a crucial stakeholder in the new reality being created on social networks, hoping it will demonstrate the power and determination to ensure a safe online environment: \u201cThe only way for this lies on a strong, timely and determined cooperation of all DSA mechanisms with EFCSN signatories<\/em>\u201d, Ispahiu said, referring to the Digital Services Act and Code of Practice Against Disinformation<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EU will, indeed, need to show a strong resolve in standing by the policies and principles outlined in its regulatory and coregulatory framework for VLOPs, judging by signals coming not just from Meta\u2019s owner, but from other big tech moguls<\/a> as well. The Western Balkans and other neighbourhood countries must not be left outside of such efforts at a time when they might be the most critical – or even become the only viable framework to protect the already fragile information integrity in the region. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Tijana Cvjeti\u0107anin Meta is introducing major changes in how it treats misinformation and hate speech on its platforms, in the name of protecting free speech. So who in the region is rejoicing in this \u201cnext chapter\u201d that Mark Zuckerberg announced? Spoiler: politicians known for curbing media freedoms, tabloids that operate as tools of government […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10633,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[419,205,534,77,338],"class_list":["post-10627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","tag-dsa","tag-istaknuto","tag-meta-tpfc","tag-see-check","tag-western-balkans"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10627"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10627\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10641,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10627\/revisions\/10641"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}