“They've called this more speech, fewer Mistakes, but I think the real concern is that it's going to be less speech and more mistakes”
I spoke to Thomas Hughes the Chief executive of The Appeals Centre Europe which arbitrates between the social media giants and users. And the Chief executive Thomas Hughes had plenty to say
LISTEN HERE
https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/breakfast-business/the-business-of-the-appeals-centre-europe
TRANSCRIPT:
JOE LYNAM: So what do the radical changes in their moderation policies mean for you guys?
Because they said that very clearly they're going to scale back their moderators as in human beings who look at all the content and decide to take down or leave up on their side, and they're going to leave it to a kind of a community notes type solution, which X has? What does that mean for you guys?
Thomas Hughes:
So last week meta announced that they were making a number of very significant policy changes. They've called this more speech, fewer Mistakes, but I think the real concern is that it's going to be less speech and more mistakes. There's quite a few elements to that, but the ones I think that really people should pay attention to are firstly that meta is going to reverse what has been quite a longstanding process of reducing political and politicised content in people's feeds. And actually they're going to increase that. Again, they say they're going to give users more sort of individual controls to be able to not have that in their feed. But basically the default will be to include that kind of political and politicised speech. They're also saying that they're going to end fact-checkers. So fact-checking essentially is a process in which independent third parties look at content that they think is untruthful, is misleading, is misinformation or disinformation.
And they put additional context around that content. They don't censor the content. It's not up to them to take the content down. That is Meta's decision, but they provide extra additional content. What Meta is saying is that they want to move to something called Community Notes, which is basically where users themselves start to generate information about the context of content. The real challenge there of course, is that those users tend to be very politicised and they have to agree on those notes. So essentially we're going to a lot less pieces of content being fact-checked. And here we're talking about tens of millions of pieces of content. It's a lot of content that we are thinking about here. And the third thing is that there's going to be changes to the policies themselves. So essentially the policies of Matter are going to become more permissive in relation to certain issues which they think are mainstream discourse in society now. But just to make that very concrete, they've targeted issues like immigration and gender and sexuality. So things that were not permissible on the platform will now be permissible on Facebook and Threads and on Instagram. So just to give you a very concrete idea of what that might look like. For instance, now you could go on and write, gay and lesbian people are abnormal or weird. You wouldn't have been able
JOE :
To do that previously, and they hope the community notes will pick somebody up on that, but it won't prevent the actual statement going on there. Before you go reports, you heard there that Elon Musk might end up owning TikTok. Any thoughts on that?
Thomas Hughes :
Yes. Well that seems to be focused obviously, specifically on the United States, not on Europe. So we'd have to see what the implications of that would be on TikTok operations here in Europe. I think, Joe, as you pointed out yourself, this runs very contrary to what Bytedance has said previously. I think that further consolidation in the hands of individuals in the hands of social media, in the hands of billionaires means probably less diversity. And I think it's very clear what direction of travel that X has taken in relation to social media content moderation. So to see TikTok in the US move in that same direction would certainly be a cause for concern.