Meta is officially the global arbiter of ‘truth’ – yes, you should be afraid

Last month, the US Department of Justice charged two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT with violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The charges allege the individuals paid $14.7 million to a US right-wing social media company to create and distribute nearly 2000 social media videos across TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube that contained covert pro-Russian messaging on topics like the Ukraine war, immigration, and domestic US policies.

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg. Credit: Bloomberg

Following the charges, Meta announced it was imposing a long-anticipated ban on RT and another Russian media organisation, Rossiya Segodnya, across its platforms, which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, for “foreign interference activity”.

Citing a web of deception and covert influence operations, Meta made it clear the decision didn’t come from nowhere. As far back as 2017, the US government sounded the alarm on RT and forced it to formally register as a “foreign agent”.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pulled no punches in his assessment of the charges, accusing RT of being a “de facto extension of Russia’s intelligence apparatus” with “cyber operational capabilities and connections to Russian intelligence”. In international relations and diplomacy, these are fighting words.

The Kremlin’s response, via spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, was telling. “Meta is discrediting itself with these actions,” he said, adding, “Such selective actions against Russian media are unacceptable. This complicates prospects for normalising our relations with Meta.”

The subtext of Peskov’s statement was clear: in the eyes of some, Meta is not just another company making a business decision; it’s a geopolitical actor wielding partisan influence.

The RT and Rossiya Segodnya bans are another round in an already contentious debate regarding social media giants and the power they hold. On one end of the spectrum, we have those who see such actions as a necessary step in combating state-sponsored disinformation.

On the other end, free speech advocates view the ban with great alarm, seeing it as a dangerous precedent for tech giants acting as “arbiters of truth”. Elon Musk, who proclaims himself to be a free speech absolutist (whenever it’s convenient for his self-image), posted to his own platform X: “If we lose freedom of speech, it’s never coming back.”

For all the melodrama that surrounds him, Musk’s sentiment is one that resonates with users who fear that the disinformation cure might be worse than the disease.

As the Australian Human Rights Commission has pointed out, “Drawing a clear line between truth and falsehood is not always simple, and there may be legitimate differences in opinion.” In other words, one person’s disinformation might be another’s hard-hitting exposé. There has to be an objective truth, but moderating for it isn’t an easy prospect.

What makes this situation particularly thorny is the global reach of platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. When Meta makes a decision, it doesn’t just impact a handful of users or a single channel – it has consequences around the globe. Through the ban, RT alone lost more than 7.2 million followers on Facebook, and another million on Instagram.

According to the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about the spread of disinformation on social media. So, the pressure to address the issue of disinformation on social media platforms is mounting, from both users and public agencies.

Social media and the internet have given a voice to millions who were once left out of the conversation. They have brought together communities across the globe and made information more accessible than ever before – something we couldn’t have imagined even a few decades ago.

What makes these platforms so powerful is their ability to cultivate open expression and tear down barriers. It’s a noble idea, and worth defending. But for every heartwarming story of long-lost school friends reunited or grassroots movements gaining traction, there is a Cambridge Analytica scandal, or disinformation spreading like wildfire. And Meta has now, in effect, become a gatekeeper of global discourse, a role it is neither suited to, nor was elected to fulfil.

The ban on RT and Rossiya Segodnya won’t be the last word when it comes to online disinformation. The challenge now is in maintaining the openness of the internet, while curbing harmful content and propaganda.

Defending Russia’s propaganda as free speech is shortsighted nonsense. But Meta’s ban raises pertinent questions about where and how we draw the line for online expression, the role of governments in policing the digital realm, and the responsibility platforms have in combating and responding to disinformation in an era when truth seems increasingly elusive.

Joan Westenberg is a freelance writer.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.