Fact-Checking Mark Zuckerberg

Introduction

On 23 October, 2019 Mark Zuckerberg testified before the House Financial Services Committee. An exchange between Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mr Zuckerberg about fact-checking organizations didn't sound quite right to me at the time, so I set out to fact-check Mr Zuckerberg’s claims.

The Testimony

The relevant exchange lasts a mere 50 seconds and comprises only two short questions with their similarly short answers. The transcript by The Zuckerberg Files reads:

A Ocasio-Cortez: That’s all right. I’ll move on. Can you explain why you’ve named The Daily Caller, a publication well-documented with ties to white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for Facebook?

M Zuckerberg: Congresswoman, sure. We actually don’t appoint the independent fact-checkers. They go through an independent organization called the Independent Fact-Checking Network that has a rigorous standard for who they allow to serve as a fact-checker.

A Ocasio-Cortez: So you would say that white supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact- checking? Thank you.

M Zuckerberg: Congresswoman, I would say that we’re not the one assessing that standard. The International Fact-Checking Network is the one who is setting that standard.

The Facts

I wasn’t the only person who took note of that exchange. Mother Jones published an article that same day explaining how Mr Zuckerberg’s answers to Rep Ocasio-Cortez were “misleading at best.” Mr Zuckerberg described fact-checker selection as a process completely outsourced to and under the control of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit, self-described “school for journalists.” However, in reality, Facebook selects fact-checkers themselves while also requiring their vetting by the Poynter Institute. In fact, Facebook appears highly selective, partnering with only six out of 62 accredited fact-checkers at the time.

Mr Zuckerberg nicely illustrated the benefits of this arrangement during the above exchange. When confronted with pointed questions, representatives for the firm can point to an established outside party for deflecting responsibility. In the succinct words of a former managing editor at Snopes, a well-known fact-checker that ended its partnership with Facebook in February 2019: “[Facebook] essentially used us for crisis PR.” Still, the appointment of a fact-checker with ties to white supremacists seems sufficiently extraordinary to explore why such an organization would go through the rather rigorous accreditation process of the Poynter Institute and how it would find itself amongst the very few official fact-checkers on Facebook.

First, the primary benefit of accreditation are the much improved opportunities for spreading propaganda and lies. That sounds like an impossibility at first because even a bad-faith fact-checking organization is constrained by the facts. To preserve credibility as well as accreditation, it must largely arrive at the same conclusions others would when evaluating the same claims. However, that leaves considerable discretion in selecting claims for fact-checking. In the attention economy of social networks, that editorial power outranks even the content. Repeatedly covering a topic, say, Hillary Clinton’s emails, can create an admittedly vague association with impropriety despite stated conclusions to the contrary. After all, where there’s smoke, there usually is also fire. Even covering a topic at all, say, the latest vaccine conspiracy, can elevate fringe voices that otherwise would be completely ignored.

Second, The Daily Caller’s subsidiary became one of only six fact-checkers parternering with Facebook because Joel Kaplan, an experienced right-wing operative and the firm’s head of public policy, wanted them on-board and Mark Zuckerberg agreed with him. The relevant two paragraphs in a Wall Street Journal profile of Kaplan read:

This summer, Mr. Kaplan pushed to partner with right-wing news site The Daily Caller’s fact-checking division after conservatives accused Facebook of working only with mainstream publishers, people familiar with the discussions said. Conservative critics argued those publications had a built-in liberal bias.

Mr. Kaplan argued that The Daily Caller was accredited by the Poynter Institute, a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based journalism nonprofit that oversees a network of fact-checkers. Other executives, including some in the Washington, D.C. office, argued that the publication printed misinformation. The contentious discussion involved Mr. Zuckerberg, who appeared to side with Mr. Kaplan, and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. The debate ended in November when The Daily Caller’s fact-checking operation lost its accreditation.

The last sentence requires clarification: According to the Poynter Institute, the fact-checking operation was placed “under review” in November 2018 because it failed to properly disclose the organizations employing fact-checkers. It was restored to good standing in February 2019 and, having passed two more reviews since, remains in good standing to this day.

The Consequences

Clearly, Mr Zuckerberg materially misrepresented the arrangement between Facebook and independent fact-checkers when answering Rep Ocasio-Cortez during his congressional testimony. Since he actively participated in the discussions about partnering with The Daily Caller’s fact-checkers and eventually approved of that arrangement, it would also appear that Mr Zuckerberg knowingly and willingly misrepresented the facts. He may not have been under oath that day, but materially, knowingly, and willingly misrepresenting yourself to the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the federal government is a felony.

When the rich and powerful abuse their position to mislead both government and public, as Mr Zuckerberg apparently did on October 23, 2019, they gain undue advantage that only increases their already tremendously privileged position. They also erode the people’s faith in this country’s institutions and its founding as a nation of law. That makes such conduct particularly pernicious and it rightly is subject to severe sanction, including imprisonment for up to five years. The above facts more than justify an official investigation into whether Mr Zuckerberg’s testimony did in fact violate the law.

Please contact your representatives and urge them to start that investigative process. It is long overdue!