Read the following passage about Meta’s moderation retreat and mark the letter A, B, C, D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer t...

Read the following passage about Meta’s moderation retreat and mark the letter A, B, C, D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 23 to 30.

Meta’s decision to dismantle its fact-checking program in the United States while relaxing restrictions on contentious topics has sparked intense debate regarding its broader implications. With Tim’s positioning of the company as a staunch advocate for unbridled free expression, concerns have emerged over the potential proliferation of misinformation, particularly in politically volatile regions. By eliminating third-party oversight and delegating misinformation regulation to user-driven “community notes”, Meta risks amplifying unverified narratives that could distort public discourse. The move has raised alarms among digital rights organizations, fact-checkers, and global media watchdogs, who fear a regression into an era where social media platforms serve as unchecked conduits for disinformation.

International fact-checking agencies, many of which depend on Meta’s funding and infrastructure, now face an uncertain future, with experts warning of cascading effects beyond U.S. borders. Professionals dedicated to combating online falsehoods from Brazil to Taiwan view these cuts as an existential threat to independent verification efforts. Some, like Summer Chen, emphasize that global cooperation campaigns, particularly during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Compounding these concerns, Meta’s decision to weaken content moderation extends beyond misinformation and affects the regulation of hate speech and harmful rhetoric on its platforms worldwide. By permitting allegations of mental instability based on gender or sexual orientation, the company has inadvertently legitimized discourse that could marginalize vulnerable communities. Critics argue that this shift, framed as a restoration of free speech, may embolden authoritarian regimes that already wield social media as a tool for suppressing dissent. In places where censorship and propaganda dominate online spaces, the removal of protective mechanisms may exacerbate societal divisions and erode democratic engagement.

Tim’s remarks further suggest a strategic alignment with the incoming Trump administration, signaling a departure from previous engagements with regulatory bodies and international authorities. His explicit endorsement of the U.S. government intervention against foreign policies perceived as restrictive toward American tech firms underscores an increasingly politicized corporate agenda. While Meta’s pivot may resonate with political factions advocating for deregulation, it introduces significant risks for its operations in regions governed by stringent digital laws.

(Adapted from The Conversation)

Question 23: Which of the following is NOT mentioned as a group raising concerns about Meta’s decision to dismantle fact-checking programs?

A. Global media watchdogs B. Independent journalists
C. Digital rights organizations D. Fact-checkers