Author: Фондација Метаморфозис

The ninth wave of measuring the openness of the executive and legislative branches of power in four countries of the Western Balkan region, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, through the Openness Index, has begun. The measurement is carried out by the network “Accountability, Technology and Institutional Openness Network in South East Europe – ACTION SEE” with support of the National Endowment for Democracy – NED “Leveraging technology to promote institutional accountability and transparency.”

The Openness Index is a composite indicator that measures, over the course of eight consecutive years, the degree of openness of state institutions in the Western Balkans to citizens and society. It was developed to assess the extent to which citizens in the region receive relevant and understandable information from these institutions.
To measure the degree of institutional openness, the partners of the ACTION SEE network, in line with international standards, recommendations, and best practices, monitor institutions using specific quantitative and qualitative indicators. These include access to information on official institutional websites, the quality of the legal framework for various issues, alternative public information sources, published data on the operations of institutions, public procurement data, and information on public spending, among others.
Based on the eighth wave of measurements carried out during 2024, the publications Assessment of Good Governance of the Executive Branch in North Macedonia and the Region through the Openness Index according to the Measurement for the Year 2023 and Assessment of Good Governance of the Legislative Branch in North Macedonia and the Region through the Openness Index according to the Measurement for the Year 2023 provide a detailed picture of the openness of individual institutions and include concrete recommendations and steps to improve their transparency.
The project “Leveraging technology to promote institutional accountability and transparency” is implemented by the Center for Democratic Transition (Montenegro) in partnership with the Metamorphosis Foundation for Internet and Society, the Citizens Association Why Not?, and Partners for Democratic Change Serbia (Serbia), with financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy – NED.

The Metamorphosis Foundation participated in the 5th annual “Privacy Week” conference, organized by Partners for Democratic Change (Partners Serbia), held in Belgrade from January 29-31, 2025, under the theme “Privacy for All.”

This year’s conference focused on privacy and data protection, with a particular emphasis on safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable, including activists and journalists.
On January 30, 2025, the central event of “Privacy Week” took place, coinciding with International Data Protection Day. The conference explored the synergy of personal data protection and the fight against discrimination, the protection of digital rights for citizens outside the European Union’s regulatory framework and the so-called Brussels Effect, the protection of medical data in the development of artificial intelligence models, along with several other related topics.

Danche Danilovska-Bajdevska, Program Director at the Metamorphosis Foundation, was the moderator of the panel “Brussels Effect—A View from the Periphery,” which was focused on the impact of European regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) on the digital market and human rights in countries outside the EU regulatory framework. Panelists in this session examined the effects of these regulations, with particular attention to the rights protection mechanisms available to citizens and the challenges in applying them outside the EU. The discussion also highlighted successful initiatives to protect digital rights outside the EU, as well as the opportunities and benefits of integrating the Western Balkans into the single digital market.

Dear President von der Leyen,Dear Executive Vice-President Ribera,Dear Executive Vice-President Virkkunen,

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, trade unions and businesses, urge you to resistpolitical pressure from Big Tech companies and prioritise bold action to protect our democracyand economy. If the EU wants to uphold its sovereignty it must not pause or weaken theenforcement of its rules.
We have observed with increasing concern how the CEOs of US Big Tech companies have takenturns to ingratiate themselves with the Trump administration in part to mobilise it against EUrules such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), competition policy and the Digital Services Act(DSA).
The CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, has publicly stated that the company would seek to workwith President Trump to undermine laws in the EU, directly targeting the DSA but alsocompetition policy enforcement. Similarly, Apple CEO Tim Cook has reportedly petitioned Trumpdirectly to spare him the fines imposed by the EU following a state aid investigation.
We are relieved to hear you remain fully committed to the strict application of the DSA and DMAand to enforcing those rules wherever companies do not comply in full, following press reportsthat suggested the Commission was considering pausing ongoing investigations.
The undersigned organisations re-emphasise in the strongest possible terms that enforcing theDSA, DMA and competition policy is essential for protecting people from the worst abusesonline, for shielding our democracies against foreign interference, for creating opportunities forEuropean innovators, for preserving media pluralism, and limiting the dangerous political andmarket power that Big Tech corporations hold today. We reiterate our support for theCommission services that do the day-to-day enforcement work and we call on you to take bolddecisions based on their assessments.
Yet, this time shows more than ever before that to rein in Big Tech the EU also needs to invest intechnology that enables a more diverse and decentralised digital public sphere.

Pausing enforcement would be to admit defeat in your work to make the digital sphere fair and safe

Big Tech CEOs trying to curry favour with the US administration is no surprise. In fact, Big Techcompanies have achieved their immense market dominance in part by wielding their power toavoid complying with laws such as data protection and competition policy in the past. They haveall heavily lobbied against the EU’s use of competition tools and the DMA since the proposal wasfirst discussed. Apple and Meta also tried to block DMA enforcement with legal actions againstthe Commission questioning their gatekeeper status.
Now Big Tech CEOs are seeking to mobilise the Trump administration to protect their ability toexploit users and businesses dependent on them, including app developers, publishers,advertisers, and others, all while continuing to stifle potential competitors. This exploitation hasnot only created an unfair digital economy; it has directly impacted the dynamism and pluralismof Europe’s economy.
Re-introducing contestability, fairness and choice to the digital market will already be a difficulttask. If we pause or weaken enforcement, we risk making it impossible.

Europe must not be bullied by the likes of Musk and Trump into weakening its DSA and DMAenforcement

At the same time, the actions taken by X and Meta are a stark reminder of how vulnerableEurope is in our dependency on the largest online platforms.
X in particular has been in violation of its obligations under the DSA for some time, as underlinedby the Commission’s own preliminary findings. The way Musk and his oligarch allies use theplatform for anti-democratic political propaganda, lies, and targeted harassment, is a seriousthreat to our democracy and political discourse in Europe. We are deeply worried about thepower they now wield through the algorithmic manipulation machine that underpins X’s socialmedia feeds.
Meta recently announced a major watering down of their content moderation approach acrosstheir platforms. This change abolishes some of the most basic human rights protections,expressly allowing the targeting of marginalised communities and emboldening extremists. Whilethose changes have been announced to apply to US users first, Facebook, Instagram and Threadsare global platforms. US-based, English-language content will inevitably be seen and shared byEEA users as well, and these users are very likely to experience the fallout of this degradation ofcontent moderation. They will rightly ask how the DSA protects them.

Now is the time to double down on EU tech sovereignty

This is not a clash between the EU and the US, but rather an attack from Big Tech againsteveryone else.
That is why we ask you today for bold political leadership to not only stand up to the bullyingfrom Big Tech firms but also to prioritise strong enforcement of the digital rulebook. In addition,we call on you to invest in a diverse and decentralised digital sphere that is part of a sovereigndigital commons and not owned and governed by proprietary technology corporations,regardless of where they reside.
Yours sincerely,
‘NEVER AGAIN’ Association, PolandAccess Now, GlobalAlgorithmWatch, GermanyAspiration, USAvaaz, GlobalBalanced Economy Project, GlobalBürgerbewegung Finanzwende, GermanyCenter for Countering Digital Hate, US/UKCorporate Europe Observatory, EUCommons Network, the NetherlandsCryptee, EstoniaDanes je nov dan, SloveniaDefend Democracy, Netherlands/BelgiumDemocracy Reporting International (DRI), GlobalDigital Action, GlobalDigitale Gesellschaft, SwitzerlandDržavljan D / Citizen D, SloveniaEKŌ, USEuropean Public Services Union (EPSU), EUEuropean Digital Rights (EDRi), EUFEMNET, GermanyGermanwatch e.V., GermanyGoliathwatch, GermanyGong, CroatiaHomo Digitalis, GreeceIrish Council for Civil Liberties, IrelandLobbycontrol, GermanyMatrix.org Foundation, UKMetamorphosis Foundation, North MacedoniaNextcloud, GermanyOpen Markets Institute, USPanoptykon Foundation, PolandPeople vs Big Tech, GlobalPolitiscope, CroatiaRebalance Now, GermanySHARE Foundation, SerbiaSOMO, the NetherlandsThe Good Lobby, EUThe London Story, Belgium / the NetherlandsTransnational Institute (TNI), the NetherlandsVrijschrift.org, NetherlandsXnet, Institute for Democratic Digitalisation, Spain

Expert Sam Power has revealed that state funding of media outlets during the election campaign is not entirely proportional.
North Macedonia has several ways to prevent corruption in online media funding through government money.

British election financing expert and University of Bristol lecturer Sam Power presented the key findings of the project “Money, Media, and Elections in North Macedonia” today at a briefing with journalists in Skopje. The event was organized by the Metamorphosis Foundation and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), writes Portalb.mk
Expert Sam Power has found that state funding of media outlets during the election campaign is not entirely proportionate. According to him, there is weak regulatory oversight, transparent in theory but not in practice.
In many areas, North Macedonia aligns with EU standards, except when it comes to indirect state funding through paid political advertising. The country’s media funding system mirrors that of countries like Bhutan, Kenya, Peru, and Thailand, as noted by Power. In contrast, countries such as Brazil, the Comoros, and Switzerland have banned political advertising altogether, while Spain and the United Kingdom offer free airtime for political content.
Currently, there is no specific body in North Macedonia to oversee online portals. Therefore, Power believes that if we give people the opportunity to behave corruptly, we should not be surprised when they do so.
“There is a high probability that state funds will be misused by politicians in connection with online portals. Money is essential, but it has the power to distort democracy,” Power said.
Based on his findings, expert Power outlined 11 recommendations based on which he aims to regulate the transparency of media financing during elections:
1. Review the distribution criteria for receiving (direct and indirect) state support, so that it is linked to votes and seats secured in previous elections, in line with EU standards.
2. Ensure timely allocation of funds and transparency of the methodology for allocating funds and designate a body responsible for disbursements.
3. To prevent established political parties from becoming too dominant, official broadcasts (offline and online) should be balanced according to the Irish model.
4. Appoint a body (likely AVMS) to monitor the activity of online portals and ensure compliance with the rules.
5. There should be no shared oversight responsibilities and each organization in the regulatory ecosystem should have a defined role in overseeing elements of election/political financing.
6. Consolidation and harmonization of regulatory responsibility between AVMS, SPC, SEC and SAO.
7. Building the integrity of the electoral process by investing in the right resources in the regulatory ecosystem.
8. Recommendation to build transparency in the political system of North Macedonia and make election expenditure payments available in the form of an easily searchable and updated database.
9. In the longer term, implementing some form of gender-specific mandates on how parties use public funds–whether by mandating that a certain percentage be dedicated to promoting women candidates, by requiring that a portion of funds be earmarked for promoting women candidates, or by offering appropriate incentives.
10. Amend the Electoral Code to explicitly prohibit hate speech in paid political advertising.
11. Introducing provisions in the Law on Financing of Political Parties to ensure fair distribution of funds for inclusive campaigns.
We remind you that the Metamorphosis Foundation investigated public funds for election campaigns on online portals. The survey was conducted on 30 selected online information portals, which is more than 10% of the total number of registered websites (251) to the State Election Commission for paid political advertising. In the period from 15 April to 10 May 2024, a total of 13,645 posts about the elections were monitored.
The survey showed that most of the monitored portals were focused on the main parliamentary parties/coalitions, while reporting on smaller parties was limited.
The research also recommends strengthening professional standards for journalists by supporting investigative and analytical reporting through specialized training programs for journalists on advanced investigative skills, ethical guidelines, and best practices in investigative journalism.
Source: Meta.mk

On 16 January 2025, in Skopje, organized by the Metamorphosis Foundation for Internet and Society, the workshop “What is the EU Digital Services Act and Why is It important?” was held for civil society organizations and media outlets, as part the project “Ensuring the Integration of the Western Balkans into the Digital Single Market.”

Photo: Meta.mk
In the Western Balkans, aligning with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is crucial for creating a safer online environment. Countries are already making strides toward alignment, and it is essential for governments, civil society, and technology companies to collaborate in developing a regional approach that strengthens digital rights and upholds democratic value.
Speakers Danche Danilovska-Bajdevska, Program Director at the Metamorphosis Foundation and Despina Kovachevska, Media Monitoring Specialist, gave an overview of the European Digital Services Act, talked about its role in protecting fundamental rights and combating hate speech and disinformation, but also about the impact of the law on civil society organizations and the media.

Photo: Meta.mk
Photo: Meta.mk

“It is a set of rules that protect users, foster democratic progress and strengthen trust in digital services. With this law, the European Union sets a global standard for a fair and secure internet for all. According to some politicians in Brussels, the DSA will bring order to the digital ‘Wild West.’ It is therefore crucial to understand the contents of this EU law,” the workshop speakers stressed. The event also presented the findings of the analysis on the impact of the EU Digital Services Act on the legal framework in North Macedonia.
According to the analysis, the most important national document clarifying the alignment of national legislation with EU regulations and policies is the National Programme for Adoption of the Acquis Communautaire (NPAA).
To comply with the DSA, however, will require coordinated work of several ministries and harmonization of several Macedonian laws, such as the laws on audio and audiovisual media services, on media, on electronic communications, on protection of personal data, on electronic commerce, on prevention and protection against discrimination and many others.
The project “Ensuring the Integration of the Western Balkans into the Digital Single Market” aims to advance digital rights standards in the Western Balkans region and contribute to its successful integration into the Digital Single Market. This initiative represents a joint effort to address the unequal standards for digital rights in the Western Balkan countries through a multi-stakeholder approach to achieve meaningful change. This project is funded by Open Society Foundations – Western Balkans, implemented by Partners Serbia (Serbia), the Metamorphosis Foundation (North Macedonia), Why Not? (Bosnia and Herzegovina), NVO 35 mm (Montenegro), Women in Tech Kosovo (Kosovo) and Institute for Democracy and Mediation (Albania).

As Meta announces end to U.S. fact-checking, program partners warn of a setback for accuracy online and potential global consequences

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,
Nine years ago, we wrote to you about the real-world harms caused by false information on Facebook. In response, Meta created a fact-checking program that helped protect millions of users from hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This week, you announced you’re ending that program in the United States because of concerns about “too much censorship” — a decision that threatens to undo nearly a decade of progress in promoting accurate information online.
The program that launched in 2016 was a strong step forward in encouraging factual accuracy online. It helped people have a positive experience on Facebook, Instagram and Threads by reducing the spread of false and misleading information in their feeds. We believe — and data shows — most people on social media are looking for reliable information to make decisions about their lives and to have good interactions with friends and family. Informing users about false information in order to slow its spread, without censoring, was the goal. Fact-checkers strongly support freedom of expression, and we’ve said that repeatedly and formally in last year’s Sarajevo statement. The freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech.
But you say the program has become “a tool to censor,” and that “fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.” This is false, and we want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record.
Meta required all fact-checking partners to meet strict nonpartisanship standards through verification by the International Fact-Checking Network. This meant no affiliations with political parties or candidates, no policy advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to objectivity and transparency. Each news organization undergoes rigorous annual verification, including independent assessment and peer review. Far from questioning these standards, Meta has consistently praised their rigor and effectiveness. Just a year ago, Meta extended the program to Threads.
Your comments suggest fact-checkers were responsible for censorship, even though Meta never gave fact-checkers the ability or the authority to remove content or accounts. People online have often blamed and harassed fact-checkers for Meta’s actions. Your recent comments will no doubt fuel those perceptions. But the reality is that Meta staff decided on how content found to be false by fact-checkers should be downranked or labeled. Several fact-checkers over the years have suggested to Meta how it could improve this labeling to be less intrusive and avoid even the appearance of censorship, but Meta never acted on those suggestions. Additionally, Meta exempted politicians and political candidates from fact-checking as a precautionary measure, even when they spread known falsehoods. Fact-checkers, meanwhile, said that politicians should be fact-checked like anyone else.
Over the years, Meta provided only limited information on the program’s results, even though fact-checkers and independent researchers asked again and again for more data. But from what we could tell, the program was effective. Research indicated fact-check labels reduced belief in and sharing of false information. And in your own testimony to Congress, you boasted about Meta’s “industry-leading fact-checking program.”
You said that you plan to start a Community Notes program similar to that of X. We do not believe that this type of program will result in a positive user experience, as X has demonstrated. Research shows that many Community Notes never get displayed, because they depend on widespread political consensus rather than on standards and evidence for accuracy. Even so, there is no reason Community Notes couldn’t co-exist with the third-party fact-checking program; they are not mutually exclusive. A Community Notes model that works in collaboration with professional fact-checking would have strong potential as a new model for promoting accurate information. The need for this is great: If people believe social media platforms are full of scams and hoaxes, they won’t want to spend time there or do business on them.
That brings us to the political context in the United States. Your announcement’s timing came after President-Elect Donald Trump’s election certification and as part of a broader response from the tech industry to the incoming administration. Mr. Trump himself said your announcement was “probably” in response to threats he’s made against you. Some of the journalists that are part of our fact-checking community have experienced similar threats from governments in the countries where they work, so we understand how hard it is to resist this pressure.
The plan to end the fact-checking program in 2025 applies only to the United States, for now. But Meta has similar programs in more than 100 countries that are all highly diverse, at different stages of democracy and development. Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide. If Meta decides to stop the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places.
This moment underlines the need for more funding for public service journalism. Fact-checking is essential to maintaining shared realities and evidence-based discussion, both in the United States and globally. The philanthropic sector has an opportunity to increase its investment in journalism at a critical time.
Most importantly, we believe the decision to end Meta’s third-party fact-checking program is a step backward for those who want to see an internet that prioritizes accurate and trustworthy information. We hope that somehow we can make up this ground in the years to come. We remain ready to work again with Meta, or any other technology platform that is interested in engaging fact-checking as a tool to give people the information they need to make informed decisions about their daily lives.
Access to truth fuels freedom of speech, empowering communities to align their choices with their values. As journalists, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom of the press, ensuring that the pursuit of truth endures as a cornerstone of democracy.

Respectfully,
15min – Lithuania
AAP FactCheck – Australia
AFP – France
Africa Check – South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal
AkhbarMeter Media Observatory – Egypt
Animal Político-El Sabueso – México
Annie Lab – Hong Kong SAR
Aos Fatos – Brazil
Beam Reports – Sudan
Belarusian Investigative Center – Czech Republic
BOOM – India
Check Your Fact – United States of America
Chequeado – Argentina
Civilnet.am – Armenia
Colombiacheck – Colombia
Congo Check : Congo, Congo DR, Central African Rep
Cotejo.info – Venezuela
CORRECTIV – Germany
Delfi Melo detektorius – Lithuania
Demagog – Poland
Demagog.sk – Slovakia
DFRAC – India
Doğruluk Payı – Türkiye
Dubawa – Nigeria
Ecuador Chequea – Ecuador
Ellinika Hoaxes – Greece
Estadão Verifica – Brazil
Facta – Italy
FactCheckHub – Nigeria
Fact-Check Cyprus – Cyprus
FactCheck Georgia – Georgia
FactCheck.kz – Kazakhstan
Factcheck Lab – Hong Kong
FactCheckZW – Zimbabwe
FactCheck.org – United States of America
FactCheckNI – Northern Ireland
Factcheck.Vlaanderen – Belgium
Factchequeado – United States of America
Factly – India
FactReview – Greece
FactSpace West Africa – Ghana
Factnameh – Iran
Faktisk.no – Norway
Faktograf – Croatia
Faktoje.al – Albania
Factual.ro – Romania
Fakt Yoxla – Azerbaijan
Fatabyyano – Jordan
Full Fact – United Kingdom
Fundación Maldita.es – Spain
Greece Fact Check – Greece
Gwara Media – Ukraine
Hibrid.info – Kosovo
India Today Fact Check – India
Internews Kosova KALLXO – Kosovo
Istinomer – Serbia
Istinomjer – Bosnia & Herzegovina
Japan Fact-check Center – Japan
Källkritikbyrån – Sweden
KOMPAS.com – Indonesia
La Silla Vacía – Colombia
Lead Stories – United States of America
Les Surligneurs – France
Lupa – Brazil
Mafindo – Indonesia
Maharat Foundation – Lebanon
Mala Espina – Chile
MediaWise – United States of America
Metamorphosis – North Macedonia
MyGoPen – Taiwan
Myth Detector – Georgia
NepalFactCheck.org – Nepal
Newschecker – India
Newtral – Spain
Observador – Portugal
Open – Italy
Pagella Politica / Facta news – Italy
Polígrafo – Portugal
PolitiFact – United States of America
Pravda – Poland
PressOne.PH – Philippines
Probe – Philippines
Provereno – Estonia
Rappler – Philippines
Raskrinkavanje – Bosnia & Herzegovina
Raskrinkavanje.me – Montenegro
Razkrinkavanje.si – Slovenia
RMIT Lookout – Australia
Snopes – United States of America
Taiwan FactCheck Center – Taiwan
Tech4Peace – Iraq
Telugu Post – India
Teyit – Türkiye
The Quint – India
The Stage Media-Liberia – Liberia
TjekDet – Denmark
Tirto.id – Indonesia
The Journal FactCheck – Ireland
The Logical Indian – India
VERA Files – Philippines
Verificat – Spain
Verify – Syria

Editor’s note: Fact-checking organizations continue to sign this letter, and we’re updating the list as they do.

The EFCSN strongly condemns Meta’s CEO’s statements linking fact-checking with censorship
Platforms retracting from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows for election interference
The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation on VLOPs

7 January 2025 – The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) is disappointed by Meta’s decision to end its Third Party Fact-Checking Program “starting in the United States” and strongly condemns its CEO’s statements linking fact-checking with censorship. “This seems more a politically motivated move made in the context of the incoming administration of Donald Trump in the United States than an evidence-based decision”, says Clara Jiménez Cruz, Chair of the EFCSN. The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation on Very Large Online Platforms.
Fact-checking is not censorship, far from that, fact-checking adds speech to public debates, it provides context and facts for every citizen to make up their own mind. Fact-checking has been proven to be effective in countering misinformation time and again. Equating fact-checking with censorship is a false and malicious claim. Fact-checkers do not ‘censor’ anyone. Our members investigate and publish the evidence of claims potentially being false. It has always been Meta’s decision what to do with the content fact-checkers label, not ours.
The EFCSN takes issue with the characterisation of fact-checkers and journalists by Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, in his announcement. In the justification for ending the program, Zuckerberg says, “Fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created.” This is patently false. Fact-checkers are held to the highest journalistic standards of non-biased reporting, transparency, integrity and accountability, with organisations like the EFCSN upholding these standards through an independently conducted audit. Linking fact-checking with censorship is especially harmful as such false claims are already one of the driving forces behind harassment and attacks on fact-checkers. Furthering these claims can only exacerbate an already dire issue affecting fact-checkers across the world.
With several European countries heading to the polls in 2025, platforms retracting from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows and potentially even invites election interference, especially from foreign actors. The EU in particular must stand strong in the enforcement of its own laws, even in the face of pressure from other countries.
What the facts (and Meta) say on the impact of the Third Party Fact-checking program

In the announcement, Meta also equated the system of labelling fact-checked disinformation with censorship, stating “A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.” This is actually the opposite of the functioning of a labeling system. Labels on misinformation empower users to make informed decisions themselves about which content to interact with and share. In fact, just last year, in the lead up to the EU’s 2024 Parliament Elections, Meta emphasised the effectiveness of its labeling system, stating: “Between July and December 2023, for example, over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact checking labels. When a fact-checked label is placed on a post, 95% of people don’t click through to view it.”
Meta has also previously celebrated its Third Party Fact-Checking Program as successful and beneficial to users, stating, “We know this program is working and people find value in the warning screens we apply to content after a fact-checking partner has rated it.” In the latest press release, Meta’s CEO alludes to “too many mistakes and too much censorship”; but Meta’s own most recent DSA transparency report shows that Fact-Checked demoted content by mistake only affected 3,15% of the total of complaints of demotion on Facebook.
The Community Notes model proposed as an alternative to the Third Party Fact-Checking Program also has weaknesses. Community Notes could best be used to counter false claims when they are based on proper expertise and fact-checking work. In the context of the 2024 US election, Poynter found that X’s Community Notes had at best an extremely marginal effect on combating election disinformation. In another investigation EFCSN member organization Science Feedback found that most of the content on X (formerly Twitter) that fact-checkers found to be false or misleading had no visible signs of having been moderated..
The European Fact-Checking Standards Network is an association of fact-checking organizations who commit to the standards of independence, transparency, and journalistic quality outlined in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations. With over 50 verified members across Europe, the EFCSN is the voice of European fact-checkers.

Contribution of Metamorphosis, Meta.mk News Agency, Portalb, and Truthmeter to the Proposed Amendments to the Law on Media In the direction of maintaining a constructive discussion and participation in the consultative process, while taking into account the experience and work of the Metamorphosis Foundation, Meta.mk News Agency, Portalb, and Truthmeter, proposals for amendments to the […]
The post Comments on the Proposed Amendments to the Law on Media first appeared on Metamorphosis.

Megafon is an annual international event organized by TechSoup Global as a space for discussion and learning to stimulate new ideas among activists, action groups and NGOs from Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus working in the field of building positive narratives and preventing disinformation. This year, the event took place on […]
The post Megaphone: annual conference for activists and civil society organizations first appeared on Metamorphosis.