JD Vance is wrong, facts are not opinions

US Vice-President JD Vance made quite a splash when he was in Europe last week, questioning European democracy and warning that it was under threat from within. He described misinformation as an ‘ugly Soviet-era word’ and suggested that anyone using it doesn’t like the idea that ‘somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion.’

At Full Fact we are expressing a different opinion, because we simply don’t accept his argument. Our focus is on ensuring that information which is inaccurate or misleading - either deliberately or otherwise - does not diminish public debate or cause harm. It’s about facts, not opinions. 

Where we agree

There is one point on which we are in complete agreement with the Vice-President: free speech is an indispensable part of what it means to be a democratic society. But we believe that free speech has never been absolute. And in the internet age more than ever, modern societies have to make difficult choices in trying to find the right balance between protecting freedom of expression and protecting people from harm. 

Examples of potential harm include financial scams, false and misleading medical information which damages people’s health, or online videos which encourage suicidal thoughts among teenagers. These are the kinds of issues that Full Fact investigates. We also campaign for higher standards of accuracy in political debate, because we believe our elected representatives should lead by example. 

We don't censor anyone

But for some time there has been a growing chorus of voices in the United States which equates fact checking with censorship. Those voices have now arrived in the White House, they have been joined by Mark Zuckerberg who changed his tune abruptly when the political winds shifted, and they are taking root in the UK.

So, let me just say something very clearly: Full Fact has never had, nor does it want, any ability to remove material from the internet. We don’t censor anyone. Nor are we trying to tell anyone what to think. 

How we fact check

When we fact check something on a social media platform as part of our partnership with Meta, for example, a label gets attached to a post suggesting that readers might want to see what Full Fact says about it, before sharing it further. 

People can choose to pay attention to the label or ignore it, as they see fit. That’s how free speech works. 

All we’re doing is adding another voice to the debate - the voice of experts who drill down into the data in an attempt to give people accurate information so they can make informed choices. 

It’s more speech, not less. 

Meta ending support for fact checking

Zuckerberg has announced that Meta is ending its support for fact checking in the United States, a decision that is likely to be extended to the rest of the world before too long. In some vulnerable countries, where independent media is not strong, that could have dangerous consequences.

Meta says it intends to replace fact checking with a system of Community Notes, similar to the one now used on X, formerly Twitter. Community Notes can certainly play a role, but it is a mistake to think that they can replace fact checking entirely. Without independent expertise, information which willfully misleads people - or causes real harm - will spread even more quickly across social media. 

Most community notes are never published

A recent investigation by the Spanish organisation Maldita showed that independent fact checkers were the third most cited source in proposed Community Notes on X - after only X itself and Wikipedia (and cited roughly twice as many times as the BBC). But most Notes are never published because they depend on reaching a consensus, rather than relying on factual accuracy. 

So there are choices to be made, as we decide what kind of information environment we want to create, and the extent to which we are prepared to allow internet platforms - run by some of the most powerful corporations in history - to regulate themselves.

Full Fact is a charity founded and run on the notion of due impartiality. But we will not be impartial on the proposition that facts matter.