When Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta would end much of the company’s moderation efforts, like third-party fact-checking and content restrictions and replace it with a crowdsourced model, it became clear that the company was shifting the responsibility for identifying and combating misinformation onto its users, leaving them to navigate a vast sea of online misinformation. This wasn’t merely a product pivot; it was a retreat from accountability.

Days ahead of Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, Zuckerberg outlined an overhaul of Meta’s content-moderation policy that will lead to a fundamental change in how misinformation is addressed on Meta’s platforms in the US, and perhaps eventually in the wider world. 

Meta’s fact-checking programme was launched in 2016 after Russia allegedly used Facebook and other platforms to influence American voters during the elections that year. A 2023 statement from Meta said the fact-checking program had “expanded to include nearly 100 organizations working in more than 60 languages globally.”

While fact-checkers did not censor or remove posts, they added critical context and debunked false claims, ensuring users could make informed decisions. After a fact-checker has rated a piece of content as “False”, “Altered” or “Partly False”, it will receive reduced distribution on Facebook and Instagram. As recently as 2022, Meta was bragging about fact-checkers’ contribution in content moderation and that it had invested more than $100 million into global fact-checking. But then last week, fact-checkers were blindsided by Meta’s sudden decision, as many fact-checking organisations signed a new contract to work with Meta in 2025 just two weeks ago — only to wake up on January 6 to the news the programme was being scrapped.

US-first Policy 

Meta’s partnerships with fact-checkers weren’t perfect, but they were essential. It was a way to make sure billions of users could navigate the digital world with a little more confidence. For years, it has been the safety net against harmful content, viral conspiracy theories, doctored videos, violent extremist content, and false and unscientific claims. Now beyond immediate job losses in the fact-checking community, Meta’s withdrawal weakens the global infrastructure to combat misinformation. 

Meta is also discontinuing key Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, effective immediately. The company will dismantle its DEI team and cease efforts to source business suppliers from diverse-owned companies. Meta cited the evolving “legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the United States” as the reason for this shift. 

This decision offers significant insight into both the future of social media and the shifting dynamics in which the Trump administration is likely to push tech platforms to align more closely with US political sensitivities, prioritising “American interests” over global diversity goals. While this repositioning may offer political or regulatory advantages within the US, it will also expose Meta and other tech companies to heightened international scrutiny and regulatory challenges.

The Big Gamble 

Soon after Meta’s fact-check announcement, India’s Parliamentary Committee decided to summon Meta representatives over Zuckerberg’s recent comments about Indian elections stating that India is among “a ton of countries…[wherein] incumbents basically lost [elections due to their handling of Covid-19 pandemic].” Zuckerberg made this statement at the Joe Rogan Experience show podcast, which has, in the past, been accused of spreading misinformation. India was quick to react to this false statement. 

“Misinformation on a democratic country maligns its image. The organisation would have to apologise to the Parliament and the people here for this mistake,” Nishikant Dubey, who heads the Parliamentary standing committee on Communication and Information Technology, said in a post on X.

In the European Union, there is already raging discussion on how to protect people from social media harm. The EU regulations require social media companies to take a more proactive approach in combating online harms, including disinformation. The EU’s Digital Services Act mandates platforms to swiftly remove illegal content and mitigate disinformation, with heavy penalties for noncompliance. Under this law, major social media platforms can face fines up to 6% of their annual global revenue for failing to remove illegal content, disclose moderation policies, or address the impact of disinformation.

In Germany, Meta faces some of the toughest regulations. In 2015, Facebook, like other platforms, agreed to remove hate speech within 24 hours of being flagged, as part of an agreement specific to the country. “During the US election campaign, we have already seen disturbing interference from Elon Musk on X, pushing algorithms with his own political beliefs,” Axel Voss, the German Member of parliament who authored the EU Parliament’s copyright bill, told me. “Together with colleagues across party lines we have sent several requests to the European Commission to assess such behavior against the rules of the EU Digital Services Act.”

What does it mean for Asia?

The Asia-Pacific region represents a big market for Meta, with over 1.4 billion monthly active Facebook users—accounting for 40 percent of the platform’s global user base. In 2023, the region generated $36 billion in revenue, contributing 26.8 percent of Meta’s total global earnings. To address the challenge of misinformation on its platforms, Meta has partnered with numerous independent fact-checking organisations across Asia. However, recent policy shifts have introduced uncertainty about the future of these collaborations.

Already, Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and South Korea want social media platforms to take more responsibility for combating harmful content, disinformation, and other online harms. The growing pressure stems from the platforms’ significant influence on public discourse, national security, and social stability. 

In 2018, there was backlash when Facebook was accused of playing a “determining role” in the spread of hate speech against Rohingya Muslims, who were victims of genocide in Myanmar, according to the United Nations. 

The Indian government, in particular, views deepfakes as a growing threat and has urged tech companies to actively police deepfakes, proactively identifying and flagging misinformation, or content that impersonates individuals. India’s IT Rules require platforms to proactively address misinformation, under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, a social media platform with more than 5 million registered users is classified as the Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs). In addition to the due diligence requirements prescribed for all intermediaries, the SSMIs are required to meet additional due diligence requirements, including appointing a Nodal Contact Officer who is available 24/7, enabling the identification of the first originator of information on the platform, using technology-based measures to identify certain types of content, establishing a physical contact address in India and taking down content within 36 hours of receiving a court or government order and providing a grievance redressal mechanism for users or victims. 

Political Pressures at Play

Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: Politics. Meta’s decision isn’t just about simplifying processes or saving costs; it’s about surviving in an environment where political power shapes corporate actions.  In response to Meta’s decision to end the fact-checking programme, US President-elect Trump remarked that Meta has “come a long way,” signaling his approval. This, just months after Trump had called for Zuckerberg to face life in prison for alleged interference in US elections. Meta’s decision to align itself with the incoming administration seems almost inevitable. It seems a financially and politically advantageous move, especially as Meta prepares to battle the US Justice Department in an April antitrust case that could force the sale of Instagram. 

While Zuckerberg is trying to secure his company’s future, it’s the platform’s users who will bear the brunt of the fallout as the digital landscape grows increasingly divisive worldwide.

 

Over the last few weeks, courts across the UK have been busy. 

On July 29, when an 18-year-old boy attacked children at a Taylor Swift-themed event and killed three young girls in the UK’s Southport city, it opened a Pandora’s box that is the long-simmering racist sentiments among some sections of its society. Violence engulfed several cities in the country led by far-right British mobs and lone individuals. Their target? Muslims and their businesses,  and services like hotels used by asylum seekers. 

Now, courts are doling out sentences to citizens accused of partaking or fanning violence. A total of 1,280 arrests and 796 charges later, trials include a 12 year old from Manchester, a Tory councillor’s wife in Southport and a law student in Plymouth. 

The riots are widely attributed to a long-simmering anti-immigration sentiment in the UK. For many British citizens of South Asian and African descent, also known as the “Windrush generation”, last month’s events were a painful reminder of deadly racist attacks in the ’70s and ’80s. The Windrush generation were people of former colonies invited to rebuild post-World War 2 UK. A 2023 survey by the University of Oxford shows that while attitudes towards immigrants have softened over the decades, over 50 percent of people there still think immigration numbers should be reduced. 

 

Who created the racist hoax that fanned UK race riots?

 

 

Channel3Now is a little-known website operated from Pakistan. A BBC investigation found that the website aggregates crime news from across the world to earn its revenue. Channel3Now had shared the hoax without a byline and admitted to the BBC that the fake news “shouldn’t have happened but it was an error, not intentional.”

A man called Farhan Asif, who lives in Lahore and is identified as a 32-year-old web developer, was arrested last month by Pakistani police under cyberterrorism laws, but eventually released last week after the police said they couldn’t find evidence that he posted the news. The UK police, however, say that it was Asif who shared the post and deleted it later. Asian Dispatch could not independently confirm whether the hoax was posted from Pakistan, the UK or another part of the world.

In another interview, Asif is quoted as saying: “I don’t know how such a small article or a minor Twitter account could cause widespread confusion.” 

The website has since been shut down but an archived version of the hoax article shows the name “Ali-Al-Shakati” attached to the attacker on July 29 without any attribution to police statements. On Twitter, the website still has an unverified page.

 

The real name of the attacker was revealed last month by the Liverpool crown court for the sake of public interest and in the light of disinformation being spread online. Axel Rudakubana, who is 18, was born to Rwandan parents in Cardiff. 

How did the Western far-right influencers cash in on the hoax? 

The fake news has since been debunked by media outlets and the UK police. However, the damage has been irrevocable. 

By the time Channel3Now’s hoax post was deleted, it had received 1.7 million views. Far-right influencers reshared the fake news on their platforms. In his video, which is flagged for “hateful conduct” on X but still has 15.2 million views, Andrew Tate said, “The soul of the western man is so broken that when invaders slaughter your daughters, do you nothing” and warned that “they are going to keep coming.” Tate has been charged with rape and human trafficking in Romania.

Former British actor-turned-rightwing influencer Laurence Fox tweeted how “British girls have been raped by immigrant barbarians”, garnering 5 million views. Fox has previously opposed protests in support of George Floyd’s killing in the US and shared anti-vaxxer sentiments during COVID-19 pandemic.

Another rightwing influencer Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, also shared the fake news on his X account that has nearly one million followers, repeatedly linking Muslims in general to the attacks and accusing the government of “gaslighting” the public. Before his posts were deleted, it reportedly had 54 million daily views. Robinson is the founder of English Defence League, a now-defunct anti-immigrant and Islamophobic group.  

Nigel Farage, who runs UK’s populist and right-wing political party called Reform, amplified the fake news too by suggesting that the UK police is withholding information about the July 19 attacks. 

The violence followed soon and in tandem with these posts, first in Southport, then followed by cities of Rotherham, Tamworth, Manchester, Liverpool, Belfast in Northern Ireland, and others. 

What is the role of social media platforms in all of this? 

In conversations of social media platforms and threats to democratic and pluralistic values, X has been more than just culpable. Reports have shown how X is an incubator of misinformation. A Washington Post analysis found that hate speech is inherent in X’s algorithm. X’s owner Elon Musk himself has been accused of spreading hate and misinformation. In the wake of UK attacks, his now-deleted posts targeted prime minister Keir Starmer while claiming the UK was on the cusp of a “civil war” because of “unchecked immigration.”

How did the July 29 hoax contribute to existing racism in the UK?

A 2023 survey carried out by an independent UK research institute Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity found that over a third of people from minority groups in the UK have experienced racist assaults. The report also documents varying degrees of racism across all aspects of life, from health and wellbeing to socioeconomic indicators. Last month, the UN released a report connecting the rise in racism with racist comments by the UK’s political leaders.

Surveys show that although Brexit toned down anti-immigrant sentiments, it has been seeing a rise since 2022 as reports of immigration rose. A YouGov tracker of issues that UK citizens feel strongly about, found a dip in interest in immigration and asylum issues after 2016, but there’s a sharp uptick in mid-2022. Another YouGov data found that 57 percent of surveyed people blame the role of the media in painting the immigration and asylum issue negatively.

 

Axel, a student at Durham University who withheld his full name for privacy reasons, explained how the far-right media has been framing the immigrants as the “other.” 

“(It) frames the people of colour as the source of Britain’s plight and the enemy of the white working class,” he said. “This false narrative resonates with many who are struggling, especially those with racist sentiments, pulling them towards more entrenched far-right politics and racism.” 

The UK government data shows a decline in the number of asylum seekers – 69,298 asylum applications until March 2024, which is 14 percent lower than the number of applications by March 2023. 

However, another official data on illegal immigration, which shows 6,265 small boat arrivals between January 1 and April 21, 2024, compared to 5,049 in the same period last year, an increase of 24 percent.  

“Anti-immigration sentiment has grown due to inadequate and poorly communicated immigration policy,” Axel said. “Both in processing immigrants and refugees justly, and in failing to provide towns and cities the resources, they need to manage demographic changes as a diverse and integrated community.” 

“This has led to a rise in far-right politics, instead of an inclusive and just policy change,” he added. “Declining living standards, poverty and widening inequality associated with the cost of living crisis has left many wondering why their lives are getting harder.” 

Raza Rumi, a lecturer at the City University of New York, and a graduate of London School of Economics, reiterated the role of economic stress.

“In part, the economic stress in recent years and squeeze in public services and entitlements under the larger framework of neoliberal economic policies has created a difficult situation for working people and middle classes. Homelessness, poverty including child poverty have been on the rise,” he said. 

“This is a fertile environment to blame the migrants and build false narratives that they are the problem for these societies. In fact studies show that immigrants in western societies are contributing to economic development and fulfilling important needs for skilled and semi skilled workers,” he added.

Today, anti-immigration sentiment has now become a Europe-wide  phenomenon. In this year’s European parliamentary elections,  anti-immigrant sentiment was a key factor that enabled far-right parties in several countries, including France, Germany, and Italy, to secure more seats.