Can fact-checkers accurately forecast false claims that may cause harm, and defend wider freedom of speech?

Description

The EU requires online platforms to counter "harmful misinformation" but no system is agreed to decide what is and is not "harmful". In 2024, three fact-checking organisations ran a trial of a new model, proposed by Africa Check founder Peter Cunliffe-Jones, to identify claims which do and do not have a substantive potential for "substantive consequences". We discuss the implications for fact-checking and defence of wider freedom of speech.
Moderated by Lucas Graves.