The Control of Information
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr Judith Brown.
If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country…if this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominoes one by one… President Donald Trump, 15 December 2024.
Zuckerberg and Censorship – what will happen next?
In earlier The Control of Information posts it has been revealed that the immensely rich control policy and information, and they operate above the level of governments. Fact check platforms have been a vital part of this control of information on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, without them, information cannot be censored to the same extent. With the support of policy enforcers, a category that includes governments, those who decide policy have organised a censorship regime that has spread across the world. This includes all forms of media. When such immense power meets obstacles, it can regroup and find different methods of achieving their aim of total control. Events of the past few weeks have however challenged their control. This article examines those events, and gives an insight into what might happen next.
Trump and Facebook – a formidable partnership?
On 7 January 2025 the owner of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg made a statement concerning censorship practices on Facebook and Instagram. Zuckerberg stated that fact checkers have been too political, and the censorship regime they imposed had crossed a line, with fact checkers destroying more trust than they created. The takeaways from the Meta statement are (1) Meta will end its third party fact checking programme and move to a new system called ‘Community Notes’. (2) Meta will lift restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse, and focus enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations and (3) a more personalised approach will be made towards political content [1] here.
There were two external issues that affected Meta that may have been influential in this decision. (1) The election of Donald Trump to the American presidency, Trump having made statements to the effect that his administration would stop funding censorship and (2) the Zuckerberg statement occurred one day after Children’s Heath Defence (CHD) asked the Supreme Court to hear a censorship case against Meta.
On 15 December 2024 President-elect Trump made an uncompromising statement on free speech immediately after his successful election campaign. This free speech initiative included a ban on federal money being used to label domestic speech as ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’. It also included asking the Department of Justice to investigate the censorship regime. Digital platforms would be compelled to stop all censorship activities. Non-profits that are part of the censorship industry should be defunded, including American universities, with criminal penalties for non-compliance. A digital Bill of Rights would be passed, in which any government officials who wish to take down content would need a court order. Trump stated that when users have their content removed, throttled, shadow-banned, or otherwise restricted, they should have the right to be informed, to know why this is happening, and be given a right of appeal [2] here.
The other issue was potential of court battles concerning censorship activities. CHD was deplatformed from Facebook and Instagram in 2022 and these accounts had not been reinstated. CHD took its case to the Supreme Court, naming Facebook and its founder Zuckerberg, the fact check platform Science Feedback, the Poynter Institute and PolitiFact website in its legal action [3] here. CHD is still continuing its legal fight even though there is a policy change in USA, as it wants legal clarification, so that a future political change does not result in the re-emergence of censorship activities.
Indeed, Meta is making these announcements in response to the incoming presidential administration; Zuckerberg stated that the removal of fact checkers ‘would start in the US’. These changes in censorship can only be effective in the USA, as although American influence extends worldwide, it can have no direct impact on policy outside its borders. It is not clear how Facebook and Instagram will operate outside the USA, including countries that have onerous censorship legislation, such as the EU and United Kingdom. For example, the Online Safety Act (OSA) in UK that came into effect in January 2024 is regulated by Ofcom. Online social media companies such as Meta can be fined £18 million pounds, or up to 10% of their worldwide revenue if they do not comply with regulations [4] here. Similar penalties exist in Europe with the EU Digital Services Act (DSA).
The statements made by Zuckerberg place blame for censorship activities on the US administration, onerous censorship legislation in the EU, and fact check platforms. However, Meta had clear rules on its website concerning hot button issues, such as Covid-19 and vaccines, which fact check platforms were expected to follow. There will clearly be issues for Meta if they are required to run different censorship systems in certain parts of the globe, and the EU is the largest market for social media.
Another social media platform, X, (formerly Twitter) also removed its fact check activities after it was purchased by Elon Musk, a free speech absolutist, in October 2022. It also operates a community notes system of content moderation, so whilst currently Facebook has not yet published its new standards of content moderation, X community standards can be examined, as Zuckerberg plans to use a similar system at Meta.
Basically, on X, graphic images of violence can be shared if properly labelled, but users cannot affiliate with or promote the activities of violent entities. This is an issue where militant groups are proscribed as terrorist organisations in some countries but not in others, such as Hamas or Hezbollah. It is unclear whether support for Palestinians or Lebanese civilians will be considered ‘violent or hateful entities’ and whether criticism of Israeli military activities will be considered ‘anti-Semitic’ as these have already been contested areas in media and political arenas.
Other content checking issues on X such as child safety, abuse and harassment largely follow expected rules, perpetrators of violent acts will have their accounts removed, adult content such as adult nudity can only be shared if properly labelled. Illegal trading is not permitted. There are expected restrictions concerning the invasion of privacy, manipulating or interfering with elections, or impersonating other individuals [5] here. Meta’s community notes scheme is likely to be similar.
Zuckerberg states that he is dismantling Meta’s third party fact checking program, ‘starting in US’. It Is thought that this will take effect sometime in March 2025. It is unclear from this initial statement how this will be rolled out worldwide. This will create financial pressure for some fact check platforms that depend on Meta for the majority of their income. Some fact check platforms such as that belonging to the French newswire AFP have global coverage. A platform in Jordan, Fatabyyano, fact checks most Arabic speaking countries, and employs thirteen fact checkers, with much of its income derived from Meta. Facebook has been a major funder of the fact check industry, and also of media literacy training campaigns.
Depending on the new American legislation, it might or might not be possible for other funders to step in to fill in the income gap that will appear, as Meta leaves the fact check industry. In other countries, such as Europe, Brazil and United Kingdom, Meta has not clarified whether it will still fund fact checkers, although it is likely that they will not do so. The funding gap may be bridged by those with immense wealth, who are already funding fact checkers to a significant degree. The Meta change of policy is causing major concerns to fact checking platforms worldwide.
On a programme called Scoop, aired on the French television channel France 24, the change of Meta policy was discussed. Mark Frankel, the head of communication and policy on the British fact check platform Full Fact was interviewed. Frankel stated that the Zuckerberg announcement had been a dark day, and fact checkers worldwide had had a difficult week [6] here.
Frankel stated that Facebook had always applauded fact checkers and had not criticised Full Fact’s activities, and he refuted Zuckerberg’s accusations of political bias. He stated that the majority of the volume of content that was moderated was not political anyway. Of course, as pointed out in an earlier The Control of Information post, many fact checks involve unimportant trivia. However, Frankel did not clarify his position on hot button topics such as health, vaccines, climate, and gender where policy makers have had a preference for limiting debate, even though these topics are not directly political. Opinions that challenged official narratives have been excluded from social media especially in the past ten years; for example, in an interview Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook had been pressured to exclude some truthful content [7] here.
Frankel pointed to the rigorous accreditation process that fact checkers had to undergo in order to meet Facebook’s 3PFCP standards. However, these standards were designed to check against a particular narrative that suited the immensely wealthy and powerful that fund the fact check industry. Frankel stated that the level of misinformation had not evaporated, but there was just a change in political debate.
As an example of the value of the fact check industry, Frankel described riots in UK following the murder of a number of children, stating this demonstrated a need for content verification. However, this is a strange argument. Fact checkers clearly had not removed content that was alleged to have caused the riots. The causes of riots are complex, but contented communities do not turn to violent protest. Societies that find outlets for expressing their grievances, and generally feel that their concerns are listened to, are less likely to feel the need to protest violently. The fact checkers censorship role could be one factor that causes social unrest, rather than being necessary to prevent such events.
It is unclear whether Facebook will employ any fact check platforms to manage, or police, its Community Notes project. On 9 January 2025, the Poynter Institute stated that Meta has cut ties with all fact-checkers, including their own institute [8] here. Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) was involved in the accreditation of fact check platforms that were employed by Meta on the Third Party Fact Checking Program (3PFCP). Although Zuckerberg clearly refers to censorship on its platform, Poynter denies that it has been involved in such activities. The European counterpart to the IFCN, the European Fact Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) funded by the EU, expressed disappointment at the ending of the 3PFCP, at the same time condemning Zuckerberg’s statement that linked fact checking to censorship [8] here. Inexplicably, the EFSCN states that fact checking adds speech to public debate by providing context. It is hard to understand this statement, as removing posts and shadow banning expert opinion takes information that challenges official accounts from the public arena, and reduces opportunities to debate.
Using Full Fact as an example, the financial impact of the withdrawal of Meta funding is examined. Full Fact is a charity with an aristocratic founder, and a range of funders. In 2023 Full Fact received £522,632 from Google, £379,985 from Meta, £365,510 from ‘small donors’, and over one million pounds from philanthropic trusts. It also receives small amounts of money from interest, gift aid, and rent. Small donors is an unusual form of income for fact check platforms, but Full Fact is registered as a charity and hence runs annual fund raising campaigns [9] here. Looking at the accounts, Full Fact can make up any shortfall in income by appealing to wealthy donors. Google is closely associated with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and currently it is not changing its policies.
However, what is increasingly clear is that the intention is to reduce the amount of censorship from social media platforms, although inevitably some restrictions will be retained. Some anticipate this will create tension between Meta and countries with onerous censorship legislation, such as EU and UK. Zuckerberg hit out at the EU by describing ‘an ever increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there’ [10] here. Musk and X, have already been in conflict with censors in Brazil but eventually were forced to comply with their regulations [11] here, and also Musk is currently being investigated in the EU for non-compliance with the DSA [12] here. The fact that X has already reduced its reliance on fact checkers will create a stronger coalition of large social media platforms and may give Musk and Zuckerberg confidence to strongly negotiate with governments that have legalised censorship. Ireland may hold the key to negotiations between Meta and the EU as Meta has its headquarters in Dublin – a Irish spokesman said that they are engaged with Meta to ensure compliance with the DSA [13] here.
Mainstream media will be minimally affected by Meta’s decision and can continue following narratives set by governments and policy makers. However, people are increasingly losing trust in mainstream media and audience numbers are falling. Although mainstream media has attempted to increase trust it has not been effective and mainstream may face difficult choices in the future. Additionally, online news platforms mainly rely on advertising revenue or subscriptions, but if these online media outlets have an editorial policy of keeping to approved narratives, they will face the same pressures as large media corporations.
Policy makers will plan to take back control of circulating discourses in the new ‘anti-censorship’ environment. One of the most powerful weapons available to policy makers and enforcers is demonetisation of those who challenge their narratives. This includes removing or reducing advertising revenue and closing bank accounts, actions that have had higher prominence since 2020. For example, advertising revenue decreased after Musk took over control of X [14] here, and the independent online news outlet The Expose has had its bank account closed several times [15] here. The new online safety legislation also has the ability to enforce large fines on large social media platforms for non-compliance with censorship requirements. This has already been influential in controlling free expression on X.
Other probable fightback techniques will include smearing of experts and organisations that have independent opinions. Although smearing of opponents has a long history, smearing and discrediting of dissenters has increased since 2020. The smearing of Zuckerberg has already begun. For example, a commentator named Chris Stokel-Walker wrote a hit piece in the Guardian newspaper on 7 January 2025 [16] here. The title of his hit piece was ‘A new era of lies: Mark Zuckerberg has just ushered in an extinction level event for truth on social media’. In the article Stokel-Walker ignored evidence of bias by an industry that is almost entirely dependent on funding by governments and the immensely wealthy. He stated that removing fact checkers means social media will consist of ‘two tribes shouting at each other’, and called Zuckerberg’s statement ‘bizarre’ and politically motivated. The Guardian itself is compromised as it receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [17] here.
Significantly, one of the newer tools used in the control of information is media literacy training, which involves training people to discard information that does not originate from approved sources [18] here. The colloquial name for this type of mind control is ‘brainwashing’. Many fact check platforms as well as dedicated media literacy training organisations undertake this activity. In the past, funders have included governments, corporations, and foundations, but especially large social media platforms including Microsoft, Google, and Meta. Trump has not referred to any restriction of media literacy training in USA, and indeed Meta has not stated it will withdraw from funding this type of mind control. Already this is a rapidly growing tool, and children and students are particularly targeted. Its reach may already exceed that of the censorship industry, although it has more covert tactics which do not get the same negative publicity. If wider information and debate is available on social media, the rich and powerful will increasingly rely on mind control of citizens, so that they discard any information that comes from alternative sources.
Conclusion.
Information cannot be fully controlled without the involvement of the fact check industry. The new political administration in USA is committed to reducing censorship activities, and has threatened financial and legal penalties for those who do not respect the right to free speech. This has resulted in the largest social media company, Meta, changing its policy on the use of fact checkers to censor information in the US, and possibly in the rest of the world. This aligns with the existing position of the second biggest social media, X, that was recently purchased by a free speech absolutist.
Whilst there will be less censorship on social media in America, in the short and medium term, it is unclear how this policy will be implemented in countries with onerous censorship legislation, such as the DSA in Europe and the OSA in UK. Currently, the new position in USA causes uncertainty and this will need time to settle down.
What is obvious is that the immensely wealthy, the oligarchs that decide policy, will seek new ways to control circulating discourse. They already have tools that they regularly fund and use; including smearing, demonetisation, and employing techniques to control minds. Mainstream media is not likely to change course, although their audiences and subscribers are diminishing. The EU and UK, with close links to Stratcom that is part of NATO, is an arena where information can continue to be more easily controlled by oligarchs. Policy makers may also have the ability to undermine the new American administration, causing it to change direction. Whilst this new initiative in USA will cause problems for the oligarchs and the censorship industry, it is too early to predict what the future will hold for the control of information, and with it, the control of populations. The fight for freedom of speech and democracy is not over.