Fact-checking: Biblical or Biased?
by Luke Dorman
Meta’s move away from controversial and opaque fact checkers is a good one, if politically performative. Community notes is, in principle, a more biblical alternative, because it prevents the concentration of power. But this is qualified by the need to regulate illegal content and improve its speed and scope when factchecking. Ultimately, it’s a ‘least worst’ option in a world where trust in institutions and others has broken down.
Recently, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that his platform would no longer use independent fact checkers, instead opting for the ‘community notes’ system already used by X[1][2]. This policy is currently limited to the US and seems, along with Meta’s public disbanding of its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs[3], to be a thinly veiled attempt to curry favour with the new President[GU1] [4].
This is all well and good, but online fact checking remains a controversial issue in its own right. Social media platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and X allow individuals to disseminate their views further and quicker than ever before. Unfortunately, untrue news can now also spread further and quicker than before. This was made painfully clear before the UK summer riots, which were partly stirred by false claims that the Southport killer was an asylum seeker[5]. However, efforts to curb misinformation often backfire, as in 2022, when YouTube removed a series of videos documenting human rights abuses in Ukraine because they contained ‘violent content’[6], or in 2020, when social media sites blocked access to a Washington post article alleging corruption by Joe Biden[7][8]. A previous Jubilee centre article[9] has already investigated biblical perspectives on government regulation of speech, however these recent developments raise the question: how should the regulation of expression operate on private platforms?
How do platforms currently work?
Until now, Meta relied upon independent[GU2] fact checking organisations to rate content that was marked, either by users, or by their own algorithm[10]. Content rated as ‘false’, ‘altered’, or ‘partly false’ was flagged, recommended less to others, and users who consistently posted this content could have their accounts restricted. Though Meta’s fact-checking organisations must be verified by an international body[11] which requires method transparency, Meta does not clearly disclose which fact-checkers it uses, making its content moderation system opaque at best.
Community notes, the new system introduced by Meta, is currently used on X and relies on individual users fact-checking posts. The ‘notes’ created are displayed if users on different ends of the political spectrum mark them as ‘helpful’[12]. As of 2023, posts corrected by community notes were not eligible for ad revenue[13], but their distribution isn’t actively restricted, and users who consistently post corrected notes suffer no penalties. Community notes have been established to be accurate[14], but critics note that they are slow to combat rapid misinformation, and their need for cross-partisan agreement means that many issues aren’t corrected at all[15].
‘Free speech’ is not the answer
Some might say our debate is resolved with a quick appeal to freedom of speech: everyone should be free to say what they want, and online regulation is a violation of this right. This perspective misses the fact that freedom of speech, in the First Amendment vein, refers to government restrictions on speech, not private organisations[16]. Social media companies sit in an uncomfortable middle ground between traditional media outlets, like newspapers, which hold full editorial responsibility for content, and communications organisations, which hold no responsibility[17]. Intuitively, we understand that these companies cannot individually regulate all content but also feel that in some cases, like regulating adult material[18], they should be responsible for removing content, and ‘violating’ freedom of expression.
The Bible makes it clear that speech is powerful and should be used with care[19], but provides little explicit guidance on these issues. Speech is regulated by the state in the Old Testament[20], and so freedom of speech is clearly not an absolute right. However it would be misguided to draw direct parallels between ancient Israelite theocracy and our modern pluralist society. This debate is about more than freedom of speech. Individual’s expression on private platforms should clearly sometimes be regulated, it’s now a question of when, and how.
Why decentralisation is biblical
We can draw biblical insight on these questions by looking for broader biblical principles around power. Technology can be seen as a tool that gives us more power, and in this sense modern communication is unremarkable. The move from saying something, to writing it, to tweeting it, is one of degrees of power[21], power which is susceptible to our corrupted human nature[22]. We’re told that “to whom much is given, much will be required”[23], so we should take a proactive approach to technology[24] and make sure it doesn’t exacerbate our natural tendencies to sin.
Old Testament Israel provides more concrete principles concerning the operation of power in society, one of which is decentralisation[25]. Israel was essentially a federation, with each tribe ruling independently, and even under Moses‘ central authority was divided between selected judges[26]. In addition, the Levites, who held religious power, were not allotted land[27]. To afford any entity, whether it be government or independent fact checkers, too much power is contrary to biblical principles. This should ring especially true in countries with significantly less digital freedom than our own, such as China[28]. In addition, when resolving disputes, Jesus encourages us to “settle matters quickly”[29] with our adversaries, one on one, viewing the courts as a last resort[30]. Transitioning to community-based fact checking is in some senses a return to this decentralised form of communication and dispute resolution.
We should of course be cautious about unquestioningly embracing community notes systems. As noted in the Jubilee Manifesto[31], physical proximity is a key component of relationships[32], a component we lack in online interactions[33]. Democratising factchecking does not solve the problem of regulating illegal activity online, and community notes is, as noted above, slower to respond to misinformation, and often misses untrue content.
However, as our society grows less trusting of each other and our institutions[34], the decentralisation of fact checking may yet be our ‘least worst’ option. As for now, we may only pray that society will grow more to speak the truth in love[35] every day.
Further reading
For a biblical response to the challenges of the digital life, Guy Brandon’s “Digitally Remastered: A Biblical Guide to Reclaiming your Virtual Self.”[36]
For an investigation of the Christian perspective on decentralisation, B.G.B Logsdon’s “Multipolarity and Covenant: Towards a Biblical Framework for Constitutional Safeguards.”[37]
The views and opinions expressed above are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.
[1] BBC, Facebook and Instagram get rid of fact checkers
[2] Meta, How fact checking works
[3] Forbes, Meta Is Ending Its DEI Programs, Replacing Them With… DEI Programs?
[4] Guardian, Will the EU fight for the truth on Facebook and Instagram?
[5] BBC, Violent Southport protests reveal organising tactics of the far-right
[6] The Barrister Group, The Future of Free Speech Online: Legal Battles and Emerging Trends in the UK and EU
[7] Washington Post, The forgotten – and ignored – context for the emergence of the Hunter Biden Laptop story
[8] Though a Republican inquiry found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, the emails cited as evidence in the article were proven to be genuine (New York Times, Republican Inquiry finds no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden)
[9] Matthew Ferguson, How can Christians make sense of hate speech laws from a Biblical worldview?
[10] Meta, How fact checking works
[11] The International Fact Checking Network (IFCN)
[12] Meta, More speech and fewer mistakes
[13] Forbes, Musk: X users won’t make money off corrected tweets
[14] A study of notes on COVID misinformation found that 97% of notes were accurate.
[15] LSE, Do community notes work?
[16] Library of Congress, Constitution of the United States
[17] See information on ‘Section 230’ in the US, which states 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.” (Freedom Forum, What is Section 230 and why should I care?)
[18] The particular importance of protecting children is emphasised in Matthew 18:5-6 – “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned.”
[19] Proverbs 18:21 – “The tongue has the power of life and death”
[20] False witness, blasphemy, false prophecy, and cursing one’s parents are all illegal under Old Testament law. See Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 13:5, Exodus 21:17.
[21] See Proverbs 18:21 – “The tongue has the power of life and death,
and those who love it will eat its fruit.”
[22] See Psalm 51:5 – “Surely I was sinful at birth”.
[23] Luke 12:48
[24] Guy Brandon argues for this approach in his book, “Digitally remastered: a biblical guide to reclaiming your virtual self”, quoting Genesis 4, where God tells Cain to “rule over” his sin.
[25] B.G.B Lodgson, Multipolarity and Covenant: Towards a Biblical Framework for Constitutional Safeguards
[26] Exodus 18:21.
[27] Deuteronomy 18:1.
[28] See information on the ‘Great firewall of China’.
[29] Matthew 5:25, see also 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 – “aren't you capable of judging small matters?”
[30] As a side note, the modern phenomenon of heavy judicial involvement in personal relationship disputes is perhaps an example of this passage’s relevance.
[32] One biblical example can be found in Proverbs 27:10 – “Better is a neighbour who is near than a brother who is far away.”
[33] Guy Brandon, “Digitally remastered: a biblical guide to reclaiming your virtual self”
[34] National Centre for Social Research, Trust and confidence in Britain’s system of government at record low
[35] Ephesians 4:15.
[36] Guy Brandon, “Digitally remastered: a biblical guide to reclaiming your virtual self”
[37] B.G.B Logsdon, Multipolarity and Covenant: Towards a Biblical Framework for Constitutional Safeguards
[GU1]Although MZ has also expressed concern about pressure from the Biden administration to censor opposing viewpoints (see Joe Rogan podcast).
[GU2]These may be 'independent' (in that they are external) but are markedly politically biased one way - hence the problem. One person's 'fact' is another's opinion (cf. Hunter Biden laptop censorship by Meta which probably swung the 2020 US election.)
