Introduction: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) asserts that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) asserts that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”1 Meta’s recent decision to abandon the use of third-party fact-checkers on its platforms in favour of a ‘community notes’ system raises significant concerns regarding platform responsibility, misinformation management, and regulatory oversight. While the current changes only apply to the US jurisdiction, with “no immediate plans” to abandon fact-checking in the UK or EU,2 the provisions heavily conflict with EU frameworks, particularly the Digital Services Act (“DSA”)3 and the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022.4

While Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to receive and impart information without interference, it also permits restrictions that are prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, and are necessary for national security, public safety, or to protect the reputations and rights of others.5 Greater abuses of Article 10 are being documented with the dawn of the digital age, especially considering the abundance of information that is circulated across social media platforms daily. Scholars have labelled the platforms a “double-edged sword”, accounting for the advantages they offer, such as unlimited and easy communication globally, while also recognising their danger in spreading “fake news”.6

In theory, Meta’s proposal of community-based moderation promotes participatory governance and avoids undue censorship, effectively aligning with the provisions of Article 10. However, the removal of disinterested third parties raises legitimate concerns as to the impartiality of the current fact-checking regime, which is overseen by social media users who notably lack expertise. Furthermore, Meta, as a large online platform, cannot absolve itself of the responsibility to ensure safety of users. The provision for community notes does not adequately protect against the dangers of hate speech or the widespread dissemination of misinformation and disinformation.