wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Facebook will not fact-check lies and hate speech from politicians

Courtesy: Twitter

On September 24, Facebook announced that it will continue to exempt ads and content from politicians from fact-checking, even if they violate the site’s hate speech rules or other policies, as such content is “newsworthy”. This reiteration of Facebook’s existing policy came from Nick Clegg, its head of global affairs and communications, as he delivered a speech in Washington, D.C. on the steps Facebook is taking to safeguard the 2020 US election.

What this means: Organic content and ads from politicians are not sent to Facebook’s third-party fact-checking partners for review.

Why are politicians exempted from Facebook’s third-party fact-checking programme? Because Facebook believes it is not the company’s job to “referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny”.

What about shared content? Clegg said that when a politician shares previously debunked content, the platform will “demote that content, display related information from fact-checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements”.

Is this a new rule? Clegg wrote that this policy has been in effect for over a year now. As per Facebook’s fact-checking content eligibility guidelines, content that is from a website or a page whose primary purpose is to “express the opinion or agenda of apolitical figure” is rated “Not Eligible” by the third-party fact-checker. Note that the content is still sent for review and “newsworthy Facebook posts” are eligible for fact-checking.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

What is the newsworthiness exemption? Since 2016, Facebook has allowed items that people find “newsworthy” on its platform, even if they violate Facebook’s standards. Speech from politicians will now be treated as newsworthy content which “should, as a general rule, be seen and heard”.

Factors that will determine newsworthiness: Main criterion will be the trade-off between public interest value of the speech and risk of harm. This will be determined by these factos:

  • Country-specific circumstances (Is it election time? Is the country at war?)
  • Nature of speech (Does it relate to governance and politics?)
  • Political structure of the country (Is there free press in the country?)

Is this exemption applicable to ads as well? No. Ads must still adhere to Facebook’s Community Standards and advertising policies.

Does any other platform have such an exemption? In June 2019, Twitter announced a similar policy through which it assessed “public interest”. The platform thus allows tweets from verified accounts of elected and nominated government officials and candidates with more than 100,000 followers to remain on the site, even if such tweets would otherwise violate Twitter’s rules. However, such tweets would be marked with a notice stating so.

Courtesy: Twitter

MediaNama’s take: Adjudication of content by social media platforms has remained a fraught debate for the last few years, but the spread of misinformation by elected government representatives and political candidates has exacerbated problems of disinformation campaigns. In such a scenario, to exempt organic content from politicians from fact-checking is an attempt to mitigate any responsibility and accountability on Facebook’s part. The company could have gone the Twitter way and fact-checked politician’s content, and given it a suitable label beyond “Not Eligible” so that users would at least know what is fact and what is not.

Written By

Send me tips at aditi@medianama.com. Email for Signal/WhatsApp.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ