Social media, fact-checking, and when to speak up for the sake of truth

Written by Rabbi Elliott Karstadt — 13 January 2025

Today we come to the end of the Book of Genesis – the first book of the Torah. And there are so many moments in this book in which the truth is distorted – in which facts are obscured or falsified. In a way, the whole book is about epistemology – which is the philosophical term for the question of how we can know things. In fact, if we cast our minds back to the very first portion we read from the Book of Genesis in October, we read about the moment in which Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Tempted by the serpent, the first two human beings eat from the fruit, and their eyes are opened – they become aware, for the first time, of some of the truths of being alive. And immediately, simultaneously as they discover knowledge for the first time, they begin to distort that knowledge. When God calls out to Adam and says, ‘where are you?’, Adam hides and begins that very human trait of lying – lying to God, to other people, to ourselves.

I’m not suggesting that we are all pathological liars. But I am saying that lying is something that is very specifically human – misrepresenting the world around us through language.

And it is something that continues to present characters with moral challenge throughout Genesis. As Jesse explained to us so well in his Dvar Torah – Jacob lied to his father, Isaac, pretending to be his brother Esau. When they decide together to sell him into slavery, Joseph’s brothers lie to their father, bringing Jacob the multi-coloured tunic that he had give him, covered in sheep’s blood, telling him that Joseph was killed by a wild animal.

Later in this week’s portion, we read of a moment in which Joseph’s brothers, having now been reunited in Egypt, come to him and say: ‘Before his death, your father left this instruction: So shall you say to Joseph, “Forgive I urge you, the offence and guilt of your brothers who treated you so harshly.” Therefore please forgive the offence of the servants of the God of your father’s house’ (Genesis 50:16-17).

Now, Jacob may indeed have told them this off-screen as it were, but Jewish tradition – the interpretation of the ancient rabbis – tends to view their words as a distortion of the truth – and the traditional texts actually encourage this distortion on the basis that it promotes peace between the brothers.

And there are a number of times in which our tradition tells us to promote peace above all things – even if this requires a bending of the truth.

Indeed, one group of rabbis – the school of Rabbi Yishmael – go on to state that ‘peace is so great, that even the Holy Blessed One [even God] modifies Scripture’. They cite yet another episode from the Book of Genesis, in which the character of Sarah scoffs at being told that she will give birth to a child at the age of ninety. In one verse we are told that Sarah laughs and says ‘my Lord is so old!’ – in other words, she dismisses the idea that her husband Abraham might be able to father a child at his age. In the very next verse, God recounts Sarah’s words to Abraham, but instead of quoted her verbatim, God tells Abraham that Sarah says ‘I am so old!’ thereby making the statement about herself rather than her husband, and removing the possibility that Abraham will be offended by it. So, even God will lie for the sake of peace between family members.

So, the Book of Genesis is ripe to help us to reflect on the nature of truth. On how much we are willing to allow facts to fall by the wayside in order to promote peace. And this week it has felt (to me at least) so important to find a way to think about some of these conundrums, given how much the issue of facts and fact-checking has been in the news.

This week, as many will have read, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, Watsapp) announced that, beginning in the US, Facebook would be ending its practice of referring suspect posts to the scrutiny of fact checkers, instead instituting a system copied from X (formerly known as Twitter), in which individual users have use ‘Community Notes’ to flag posts that that they believe have contravened the truth, but with no other action taken against posts that disseminate mistruths.

This has been done, Zuckerberg tells us, in the interests of free speech. In his video announcing the decision, Zuckerberg accused fact-checkers of being too politically biased,

Fact-checking is attacked for in itself being biased, with outlets like the Rush Limbaugh Show arguing that the fact-checking in the New York Times and the Washington Post is in fact simply a way of doing ‘opinion journalism under the guise of fairness’. And of course this is right – if fact-checking is simply a game that is played to get around obstacles to saying whatever you want. But that is not what good fact-checking is. Good fact-checking is subjecting any claim to scrutiny to make sure that it reflects reality. That does not stop people from interpreting the facts in whatever way they choose. It simply means ensuring that when people speak or write falsehoods, that they are challenged on it.

A very convincing understanding of why Meta is making this move, is that the victims of Facebook’s fact-checking (since it was introduced ten years ago) have been those on the far right, and often those who have supported President-elect Donald Trump, who has been vocal in his criticism of fact-checking since it has prevented his supporters from exercising their free speech – when that free speech has blatantly been used to give false information.

As with many in silicon valley, Zuckerberg and Meta want to ingratiate themselves to Trump, perhaps in the hope that they will be favoured in the business environment.  They want to be able to transact business without interference. Indeed, one reading of this new move is that they are willing to allow more distortion of the truth on their social media platforms in order to promote peace. Though of course we know that more peace between tech billionaires and politician billionaires will almost certainly be at the expense of violence between others. The insurrection in the American capitol four years ago this week, was driven by the lies of those, like Trump, who did not accept the result of the 2020 election. Lies are not just vehicles for peace – more often they are the source of anger, conflict and violence.

And it is also important to note that lying and distorting facts is a social activity. There is the liar, and then there is the receiver of the lie – the person who chooses to believe the lie – without fact-checking it – without subjecting it to scrutiny.

In the case of our biblical story, Joseph decides to believe. He doesn’t question his brothers. He does not ask them for proof. In that moment, he decides that peace is more important than the truth about what Jacob may or may not have said before he died.

But we do not always have to accept lies, even for the sake of peace. We do not have to believe falsehoods.

So, this Shabbat, may we reflect on what it means to have knowledge, what it means to know things and carry facts with us. May we continue to discern, as much as we can, the truth of the things that we read online. And let us discern for ourselves when to stay silent for the sake of peace, and when to speak up for the sake of truth.