Supplementary written evidence submitted by Full Fact (SMH0070)

What are the links between social media algorithms, generative AI and the spread of harmful content online?

Full Fact’s additional evidence

1. Full Fact is grateful for the opportunity to provide additional evidence to the committee's inquiry on the links between social media algorithms, generative AI and the spread of harmful content online.
2. On 7 January 2025 Meta announced that it was removing its partnership with factcheckers in the United States by ending its third party fact checking service (TPFC). Following this, fact checking and its validity have been questioned and criticised. We are grateful to the committee for the opportunity to detail further why fact checking is a vital part of the solution to combatting misinformation.
3. Fact checking plays a vital role in combating misinformation in major information incidents, such as the riots which took place in the aftermath of the murders in Southport. This evidence outlines Full Fact’s individual contributions to combatting misinformation during the riots and the role of fact checking organisations in combating the spread of harmful content online.
4. Full Fact’s original evidence to the committee, where we outlined ways in which the regulatory framework can be improved, can be found here: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/132987/pdf/

Executive summary

5. Fact checkers are first responders in the fast-moving information environment. Our experts work to identify misleading, faked, or harmful information as it circulates and mitigate the damage it can do to people’s lives, health, and security.
6. But as we saw from the terrible events in Southport, harmful information which originates online doesn’t necessarily stay online. If it spills across into the real world, it can create dangerous situations that require interventions from other public services - like the police, health services, local authorities - to keep people safe.
7. Full Fact believes that the Committee should explore whether the government and social media companies have learned the right lessons from Southport. If something similar were to happen again today, it is not clear that the government or the social media companies would have adopted a more robust and collaborative approach to counter the swirling misinformation. It also remains to be seen whether the social media companies have agreed to share the right information to be able to identify misinformation as it spreads, to maximise the impact of any intervention.
8. Furthermore, Full Fact argues that the chilling global effect created by Meta’s decision to end support for fact checkers in the United States requires action to protect users’ access to reliable conclusions of expert fact checking organisations.
9. Meta has announced that it intends to replace independent fact checking with a ‘Community Notes’ model. However, this model won’t give users access to reliable information.
10. An additional problem with the Community Notes model, as used on X, is that it relies on establishing consensus rather than emphasising factual accuracy. The need to find consensus means that most proposed Notes are never published.

Full Fact’s response to Meta’s announcement ending TPFC

11. Following Meta’s announcement to end TPFC in the United States, Full Fact responded to the disappointing announcement with a key point: “locking fact checkers out of the conversation won’t help society to turn the tide on rapidly rising misinformation.”[1] As this evidence outlines, by partnering with social media companies, fact checking organisations are able to reach and dispel massive amounts of misinformation to audiences that would have otherwise been deceived.
12. Since partnering with Meta in January 2019, Full Fact has checked 2,596 cases which include misleading, faked, or potentially harmful posts on Facebook and other platforms. We added context and provided credible information directly to thousands of posts, and anyone who saw them. Many of these cases relate to some of the biggest national and international stories like elections, major conflicts, viral conspiracy theories, and public health.
13. Meta’s own evidence to this committee outlines how the process works in practice:

“1.18. In the past year we’ve worked with a global network of more than 100 independent fact-checking organisations, who review content in over 60 languages on Facebook, Instagram and Threads (since April). This is the largest fact-checking network of any platform and in the UK includes Full Fact, Reuters, Logically and Fact Check Northern Ireland. To ensure high standards and accuracy, all of our third-party fact-checking partners are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and follow IFCN’s Code of Principles.

1.19. When a fact checker rates something as false, our systems are set up to use technology to reduce its distribution so fewer people see it and add a warning label with more information. We also notify the person who posted it and anyone else who previously shared it, and reduce the distribution of Pages, Groups, and domains who repeatedly share misinformation.”[2]

14. The efficacy of this work has also come from Meta’s own reporting. In the lead up to the EU’s 2024 Parliament Elections, Meta emphasised the effectiveness of its labeling system, stating: “Between July and December 2023, for example, over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact checking labels. When a fact-checked label is placed on a post, 95% of people don’t click through to view it.”[3]
15. Fact checkers have also engaged in successful partnerships with other internet companies such as the Elections 24 project in Europe, which is supported by the Google News Initiative.
16. Across the global fact checking community there has been consensus that Meta’s decision will have damaging consequences for the information environment. Financially, many fact checking organisations in countries where independent media is in short supply would be forced to close, due to their reliance on funding from Meta.
17. While misinformation is not a new phenomenon, the information revolution has transformed its speed, scale, and reach. New technologies like generative AI have further slashed the time it takes to create fake images that are increasingly difficult to detect as fake. These developments make it imperative that people have access to accurate facts and evidence that can help them to decide if what they are seeing online is trustworthy or not. Fact checkers play a key role in this.

Fact checking and Southport

18. We believe our fact checking played a vital role in combatting misinformation during the southport riots this summer. Our teams worked diligently to counter many of the harmful claims that were spreading and produced a number of checks and explainers to outline what was occurring.[4]
19. This positive view of fact checking is supported by Meta in their evidence to this committee. They said: “our technology and protocols played a positive role in reducing the spread of harmful content during the crisis, distinguishing our platforms from others where such content was more prevalent.” This statement was supported by key statistics on the amount of harmful content fact checkers were able to flag: “Independent third-party fact-checkers published 15 fact-check articles and directly rated more than 150 pieces of content.”
20. Given the decision to suspend partnerships in the US, and continued messaging that a community notes model will likely be set out beyond the US, Full Fact believes that the Committee should explore whether social media companies have the right tools in an information incident, if something similar to Southport were to happen again for example, to quickly combat the spread of false information.

The global role of fact checkers

21. We are currently in an era where even the idea of misinformation is being disputed. As Full Fact’s CEO Chris Morris wrote in a recent blog post in response to JD Vance calling misinformation  an ‘ugly Soviet-era word’, facts are not opinions.[5]
22. The decision to move towards a system of community notes would not be as adaptable, or reliable as a way to counter misinformation. Recent research by Spanish factchecking organisation, Maldita, found that fact checking outlets are the third most commonly cited sources in Community Notes, and their presence enables such posts to become more visible, reliable, and users to reach consensus faster.[6] Users clearly want access to credible and reliable information online that partnerships with fact checking organisations could deliver.
23. This inquiry now has an even more essential role to play than when it was first created. It must stand up for the fact that misinformation exists, despite a global movement telling it otherwise.

26 February 2025