Meta’s decision to phase out its third-party fact-checking program and shift to a community-driven system has generated debate over the future of information verification on its platforms. With billions of active users across Facebook, Instagram and Threads, this move has the potential to be transformative – but not necessarily in the ways we hope.
For India, where social media acts as both a source of legitimate information and a conduit for misinformation and fake news, this decision has far-reaching consequences that stretch beyond public health to national security and political stability.
India’s attitude to social media is a conundrum. On the one hand, networks such as Facebook and Instagram are critical tools for sharing health information. From vaccine drives to disease awareness campaigns such as for tuberculosis and diabetes, social media has proven effective in mobilising resources and communities. During the COVID-19 epidemic, these networks were critical in informing millions about safety precautions and vaccinations.
On the other hand, social media also provides a rich breeding ground for health misinformation. The pandemic’s “infodemic” – as the World Health Organization (WHO) dubbed it – revealed how quickly incorrect information spreads and how harmful its effects can be.
Unverified claims about miracle cures, vaccine side effects, and pseudoscientific treatments inundated newsfeeds, often overshadowing actual public health messages. The effects were catastrophic, including delayed treatment, increased vaccination reluctance, and, in some cases, avoidable fatalities.
Meta has effectively shifted the burden of truth to its users by replacing professional fact-checkers with a crowd-sourced mechanism. Mark Zuckerberg justifies the change as a move towards democratising information and eliminating allegations of biased content management.
However, this vision appears to be disturbingly out of touch with the Indian reality.
Why community-driven fact check doesn’t work for India
India’s linguistic diversity, diverse literacy levels, and geographical variations in internet access make it particularly susceptible to misinformation. A community-driven fact-checking system implies a certain level of internet literacy and media savvy, which many users in India do not possess.
In a country where WhatsApp forwards are frequently used as medical advice, the lack of expert fact-checking could contribute to an increase in health-related misinformation. Unsubstantiated claims about cures and miracles might swiftly escalate out of hand and its implications would particularly be disastrous for vulnerable people.
Also read: Why the Elderly Are More Susceptible to Social Media Misinformation
India’s polarised sociopolitical context also heightens the likelihood of unscrupulous actors exploiting the system to advance their agendas. People throughout the world have used social media platforms to destabilise nations, skew elections and spread extreme views.
However, in India, which is known for its tremendous diversity and structural issues, the lack of professional control on platforms such as Meta fosters an unchecked atmosphere for politically tinged falsehoods to thrive.
Furthermore, Meta’s decision does not only risk public health but also includes major threats to India’s health security.
Recent occurrences have demonstrated how misinformation – particularly on issues such as disease outbreaks – can snowball into public crises, leaving institutions rushing to manage both perception and fact. Health misinformation, which is linked to public faith in governance and institutional credibility, has the ability to destabilise both the social fabric and crucial health systems. In this setting, uncorrected misinformation poses a direct threat to India’s resilience and security.
The WHO is expected to be among the first UN institutions to face major financial cuts under the incoming Donald Trump administration in the United States. The US president-elect has repeatedly expressed discontent with the WHO’s operations, implying that his administration has little faith in the institution.
As the WHO tries to charm back the US administration for funds, India must understand that the organisation may not be a credible source of support in combating health misinformation in this new geopolitical environment. So, India must defend its population by utilising its own resources and expertise to solve the challenges posed by misinformation and its impact on public health.
Consider the commercial dynamics of social media networks to gain insight into Meta’s decision. Meta thrives on engagement metrics such as likes, shares, comments and views. Controversial or sensational content usually excels in these metrics, regardless of the reality. Combating misinformation is inherently incompatible with the platform’s financial objectives under this business model.
In other words, Meta’s values user engagement over user well-being, at least in territories like India where regulatory monitoring is still suboptimal. By eliminating expert fact-checkers, Meta risks turning its platforms into misinformation echo chambers, especially for a social media scene where pseudoscience is already common.
How India could prevent the misinformation risk
Given India’s economic, education and health gaps, any strategy of combating misinformation must account for these differences in order to be both realistic and scalable.
The lack of comprehensive access to education and healthcare contributes to the spread of misinformation, particularly in rural and poor areas where people rely significantly on unverified sources.
The government should begin by establishing a high-level legal and technology group of experts tasked with facilitating quick public discourse and developing tangible recommendations. These ideas should address both state-specific problems based on human development indicators and national threats that make health disinformation appear to be a security issue.
Creating dedicated monitoring cells within regulatory organisations to track and rebut misinformation in real time is critical. For example, India might be inspired by successful models such as Taiwan’s “Fact Check Centre”, which works quickly with the government and media to dispel any misleading information. To adapt similar approaches in India’s setting, these monitoring cells might involve multisectoral collaboration by integrating skills from technology, public health, and media institutions to respond decisively to damaging narratives.
In the medium run, India requires strong laws to hold social media corporations accountable for spreading misinformation and fake news, supplemented with cross-border collaboration in South Asia. Given the interrelated nature of misinformation, a collaborative framework would enable nearby countries to share experiences, standardise best practices and respond rapidly to transnational misinformation attempts.
The government should advocate for collaborations with Meta and other platforms to develop AI-powered solutions detecting misinformation that are appropriate for India’s linguistic and cultural diversity.
Meta’s withdrawal from professional fact-checking is a watershed moment in internet history, with far-reaching repercussions for public health security. This action, framed as an effort to defend free expression, runs the risk of establishing an environment in which misinformation can flourish unchallenged.
The stakes are enormous in India, a country of such size and diversity. As the Mundaka Upanishad tells us: Satyameva Jayate (truth alone triumphs), and truth’s triumph warrants focused activity. The health security of the Indian people requires nothing less than a clear and unwavering commitment to the truth.
Sunoor Verma is the president of The Himalayan Dialogues and an international expert in leadership, strategic communication and global health diplomacy. More on www.sunoor.net.
