The decision by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to end its fact-checking program and otherwise reduce content moderation raises the question of what content on those social media platforms will look like going forward.
One worrisome possibility is that the change could open the floodgates to more climate misinformation on Meta’s apps, including misleading or out-of-context claims during disasters.
In 2020, Meta rolled out its Climate Science Information Center on Facebook to respond to climate misinformation. Currently, third-party fact-checkers working with Meta flag false and misleading posts. Meta then decides whether to attach a warning label to them and reduce how much the company’s algorithms promote them.
Meta’s policies have fact-checkers prioritizing “viral false information,” hoaxes and “provably false claims that are timely, trending and consequential.” Meta explicitly states that this excludes opinion content that does not include false claims.
The company will end its agreements with U.S.-based third-party fact-checking organizations in March 2025. The planned changes slated to roll out to U.S. users won’t affect fact-checking content viewed by users outside the U.S.. The tech industry faces greater regulations on combating misinformation in other regions, such as the European Union.
Fact-checking curbs climate misinformation
I study climate change communication. Fact-checks can help correct political misinformation, including on climate change. People’s beliefs, ideology and prior knowledge affect how well fact-checks work. Finding messages that align with the target audience’s values, along with using trusted messengers – like climate-friendly conservative groups when speaking to political conservatives – can help. So, too, does appealing to shared social norms, like limiting harm to future generations.
Heat waves, flooding and fire conditions are becoming more common and catastrophic as the world warms. Extreme weather events often lead to a spike in social media attention to climate change. Social media posting peaks during a crisis but drops off quickly.
Low-quality fake images created using generative artificial intelligence software, so-called AI slop, is adding to confusion online during crises. For example, in the aftermath of back-to-back hurricanes Helene and Milton last fall, fake AI-generated images of a young girl, shivering and holding a puppy in a boat, went viral on the social media platform X. The spread of rumors and misinformation hindered the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster response.
What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation is the intent of the person or group doing the sharing. Misinformation is false or misleading content shared without active intention to mislead. On the other hand, disinformation is misleading or false information shared with the intent to deceive.
Disinformation campaigns are already happening. In the wake of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, researchers at Recorded Future, Microsoft, NewsGuard and the University of Maryland independently documented an organized propaganda campaign by Chinese operatives targeting U.S. social media users.
To be sure, the spread of misleading information and rumors on social media is not a new problem. However, not all content moderation approaches have the same effect, and platforms are changing how they address misinformation. For example, X replaced its rumor controls that had helped debunk false claims during fast-moving disasters with user-generated labels, Community Notes.
False claims can go viral rapidly
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg specifically cited X’s Community Notes as an inspiration for his company’s planned changes in content moderation. The trouble is false claims go viral quickly. Recent research has found that the response time of crowd-sourced Community Notes is too slow to stop the diffusion of viral misinformation early in its online life cycle – the point when posts are most widely viewed.
In the case of climate change, misinformation is “sticky.” It is especially hard to dislodge falsehoods from people’s minds once they encounter them repeatedly. Furthermore, climate misinformation undermines public acceptance of established science. Just sharing more facts does not work to combat the spread of false claims about climate change.
Explaining that scientists agree that climate change is happening and is caused by humans burning greenhouse gases can prepare people to avoid misinformation. Psychology research indicates that this “inoculation” approach works to reduce the influence of false claims to the contrary.
That’s why warning people against climate misinformation before it goes viral is crucial for curbing its spread. Doing so is likely to get harder on Meta’s apps.
Social media users as sole debunkers
With the coming changes, you will be the fact-checker on Facebook and other Meta apps. The most effective way to pre-bunk against climate misinformation is to lead with accurate information, then warn briefly about the myth – but only state it once. Follow this with explaining why it is inaccurate and repeat the truth.
During climate change-fueled disasters, people are desperate for accurate and reliable information to make lifesaving decisions. Doing so is already challenging enough, like when the Los Angeles County’s emergency management office erroneously sent an evacuation alert to 10 million people on Jan. 9, 2025.
Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.
The U.S. public by and large wants the industry to moderate false information online. Instead, it seems that big tech companies are leaving fact-checking to their users.
Jill Hopke is Associate Professor of Journalism, DePaul University.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
- External Link
- https://theconversation.com/climate-misinformation-is-rife-on-social-media-and-poised-to-get-worse-247156
15 Comments
Login to comment
Moriah
Misinformation like when Al Gore said in 2004 that by 2020, all coastal cities will be flooded.
virusrex
Sure, anybody that contradicts the scientists and experts in the field can be guilty of spreading misinformation, some for good intentions (like environmental activism) others for terribly bad ones (keep profits of fossil fuel companies untouched).
The worst kind are those spreading disinformation, people that know they are spreading lies (since they have been demonstrated as such repeatedly) but still they continue since they benefit personally from misleading people into believing falsehoods.
Hervé L'Eisa
The actual misinformation /DISINFORMATION is coming from the climate alarmist propaganda machine, including THIS article and source.
Bad Haircut
And this website in general. Hardly a day goes by that an alarmist piece doesn't appear here, and never anything challenging the narrative.
virusrex
Include every institute of science in the world and bring even one that disagree with the article.
Is there none? that is because the article is correct, those refusing to accept reality are the ones in the wrong.
You have never been able to provide any kind of reference to contradict what is written in these articles, but still expect people to believe you are right and all the scientists of the world are wrong. That is not a rational (nor believable) thing.
iknowall
There are many. Do your homework.
fallaffel
An article isn't alarmist if it's factual. What in this piece is false information?
"Challenging the narrative" is easy if you can present evidence that the narrative is false. You'd get a Nobel prize if you could prove greenhouse gases don't cause climate change.
Some people are more convinced by loud politicians or social media personas than science though. It means we need to evolve a bit more I guess.
virusrex
Did, there are none. Since you left the burden of proof on me that means the claim is therefore completely debunked.
Bad Haircut
The Climategate emails nearly 20 years ago from the University of East Anglia proved there is a conspiracy to hide data that doesn't conform to the catastrophic AGW narrative, but the mainstream media completely ignored the scandal. And nothing has changed; in fact, the screeching narrative from your side has got worse, mainly devolving into smears and slurs of "denialist" and "conspiracy theorist" against anyone who calls out the alarmist BS.
virusrex
No they don't that is just another lie from antiscience propaganda groups that has been repeatedly debunked. Exaggerations and misrepresentations that do absolutely nothing against the mountains of evidence that support the consensus pon climate change.
When you claim a conspiracy that includes every single institution of science of the planet you lose all credibility, it is realistically impossible for this scenario to be true, and if it is not true then the claim that climate change is not real falls completely.
When people claim that a conspiracy (including the scientific community of the whole world) is behind the consensus that climate change is real, then they are the ones that put the label on themselves.
Raw Beer
Yes, and the alarmists are getting increasingly aggressive, especially recently as they are starting to lose their grip on the mainstream narrative.
virusrex
The scientists and experts are if anything moderate on the warnings and predictions, that is the opposite of being alarmists. And no, the scientific literature have not shifted at all, anthropomorphic climate change and its disastrous consequences is stronger than ever now that these consequences are beginning to be experienced.
Bad Haircut
Almost everyone recognises that the climate changes - always has, always will. But it's the intellectually honest ones who question the extent to which CO2 and humans actually influence it. People whose incomes depend on propagating the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and that drastic economic and social measures are needed to put a stop to it are not likely to listen to people who disagree with them. That's just human nature.
GuruMick
Smoking is actually good for you apparently
Acid rain does not exist.
The Yeti lives in my condo.
Raw Beer
I see, so you're acknowledging that the media exaggerate; their reports are misrepresentations of the claims made by scientists and experts.
And regarding the scientific literature, Climategate demonstrates perfectly why it is so one sided.