Morningstar Sustainalytics’ Post

It’s been such a privilege to work with incredibly knowledgeable colleagues like Jackie Cook and Ignacio García Giner on our latest stewardship report, “Shareholder Democracy and the Challenge of Dual Class Share Structures: How Unequal Voting Rights Influence Proxy Voting Outcomes and Corporate Governance.” Dual class share structures are a critical governance topic, especially given their impact on shareholder rights and the signals they send to the market. Without giving too much away, in our report, we explore how these structures can distort shareholder democracy — particularly when it comes to advancing ESG issues — and how clearer voting disclosures could help strengthen accountability. I also have to say, it felt so rewarding to dive back into research and be able to distill it into such a comprehensive report. Working on this project has been a great reminder of how important it is to continue these conversations to drive meaningful change. Would love to hear your thoughts on this topic! #CorporateGovernance #ShareholderDemocracy #ESG #Stewardship #ProxyVoting #DualClassShares #Sustainability #GovernanceMatters

Today Morningstar Sustainalytics published a new report on how #dualclass voting rights can shape sustainability outcomes, drawing on 2024 #ProxySeason data. Please check out this report by #Stewardship colleagues Ignacio García Giner, Matteo Felleca, and myself. We propose reporting on voting outcomes by share class to strengthen the value of the voting signal and better inform post-season engagements. #corpgov Council of Institutional Investors; International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) James McRitchie; Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci; Christina Sautter; Lindsey Stewart, CFA; Paul Hodgson

Facebook and Instagram Remove Fact-Checkers: A Critical Reflection The decision to remove fact-checkers from major platforms like Facebook and Instagram is a deeply concerning development. As someone who has experienced life on both sides of the Atlantic, I recognise the far-reaching implications of such a move. We’ve already seen how disinformation can shape political landscapes, with devastating consequences for societies at large. This is not just about misinformation; it’s about the erosion of trust in public discourse. Platforms of this scale wield immense influence, and with that influence comes a responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the information they disseminate. Accuracy in media is not a luxury—it’s a necessity for informed decision-making and the health of democratic systems. I also appreciate the complexity of this issue. People are entitled to their opinions, and the diversity of perspectives enriches public dialogue. However, unchecked misinformation is not a matter of opinion—it’s a societal risk. Striking the right balance between free expression and factual accountability is a monumental challenge, but it’s one we cannot afford to ignore. The next few years will undoubtedly shape how fact-checking is managed on social and mainstream media. Will we prioritise truth and accountability, or will we allow the interests of the powerful few to dictate the narratives that shape our world? This is a pivotal moment, and it requires thoughtful leadership, robust governance, and, above all, a commitment to truth.

Can professional fact-checking and community-driven systems like Community Notes work together to protect free speech and combat harmful content? Absolutely—they should! In a recent BBC News story, I shared my perspective on how these approaches can complement each other. While community-driven initiatives add value, they often fall short in addressing the most harmful and deceptive content due to a lack of "consistency, objectivity, and expertise." Collaboration between these models isn’t just possible—it’s essential for creating a safer, more transparent environment where free speech can truly thrive. I have a big respect for Keith Coleman's leadership in introducing Bird Watch on Twitter. However, outsourcing content moderation to anonymous users does not inherently translate into "trust across the political spectrum." No credible evidence supports this assumption. On highly polarizing topics, the focus on consensus often prevents many community notes containing accurate and reliable information from being displayed to users. Eventually, the lack of trust among users prevents a crowd-sourced model from building trust. Collaboration between professional fact-checkers and community-driven systems is the real path forward. It combines scalability with expertise to address online harms more holistically.

Meta’s settlement with Trump over his Facebook and Instagram suspensions, as reported by NPR, is yet another reminder of how tech platforms continue to bend under political pressure. After standing firm on content moderation policies, is Meta now rewriting the rules to accommodate power? With social media shaping political discourse more than ever, this decision sets a troubling precedent for how platforms enforce—or fail to enforce—their own standards. We need transparency and accountability, not selective rule enforcement. #Democracy #TechPolicy #PlatformAccountability #Journalism https://lnkd.in/ePW5_HxY

Zuckerberg just dropped a video on #TrustandSafety, friends texted for my opinion and boy do i have some In this paper, I will... (iykyk 😉 ) ICYMI Here is a summary of the things he said: 1. Elimination of Fact-Checkers: Meta will remove its current fact-checking system, replacing it with a community-driven approach similar to X's Community Notes. 2. Reduction in Content Moderation: The company plans to "dramatically reduce the amount of censorship," allowing for a broader range of content on its platforms. 3.Increased Political Content Recommendations: Users can expect to see more political content in their feeds as Meta adjusts its algorithms to prioritize such material. 4.Relocation of Content Moderation Teams: Meta's content moderation teams will move from California to Texas to address concerns about political bias. 5. Collaboration with Government: Zuckerberg expressed intentions to work with President Trump to counter international regulatory challenges faced by American tech companies. My thoughts: - Mark Zuckerberg’s latest announcement about changes to content moderation and fact-checking on Meta platforms has left me with mixed feelings. The mention of X-style Community Notes replacing trained fact-checkers raised some red flags for me. Fact-checkers are highly trained professionals, and their role is crucial in curbing the spread of misinformation. It’s not about bias,it’s about ensuring accountability. Complaints about flagged posts often come from frustration, but the alternative? A flood of unchecked, potentially harmful content. - Moving Trust & Safety teams to Texas is another curveball. Does this mean aligning with more Republican-leaning perspectives, given Texas' political climate? The move might lower operational costs and create jobs, but how does this impact the neutrality and effectiveness of moderation? - And then there’s the EU's stricter regulations on Big Tech. Honestly, I think it’s warranted. For too long, tech giants have operated with minimal oversight while raking in profits from questionable practices. The pushback is overdue and necessary. Yet, Trump’s stance advocating for fewer checks and more “freedom” for corporations seems like a win for the 1%, leaving everyday users and consumers vulnerable. America may pride itself on being the land of the free, but that freedom should come with responsibility. Otherwise, it’s a slippery slope. On the bright side, the move to Texas could bring more jobs and costs of living is better! But at what cost to the integrity of platforms we all rely on? Fin. Let me know what you think in the comments

What a great summary on the latest viral announcement by Mark Zukerberg on Meta’s new strategy and soon to come platform updates around “freedom of expression” and content moderation (& their impact)👇🏼 And what a backwards move. I’ve seen in the last few years a huge shift from brands and businesses building their own communities on Mighty Network, Circle, Slack, Hivebrite, Tribe, or their own apps, and I’m not surprised these spaces are being curated more and more away from Facebook and Instagram. Unfortunately, safety, ethics and customer care are not as lucrative as bot farms and scammers willing to pay for clicks. Facebook is dead and it’s very sad indeed. #contentmoderation #communitymanagement #meta #userexperience

To post or not to post? 🤔 Robert A. Cruz breaks down why the tech giants are making it harder to use social media compliantly and what this means for the wealth management industry in this Financial Planning article: https://lnkd.in/dMdk9Bjc #wealthmanagement #tech #Meta #Facebook #compliance

At DDIA, our 8 Advisory Council members represent a variety of industries and perspectives —> In response to today’s announcement from Mark Zuckerberg that Meta will be shutting down its third-party fact-checking partnerships, civil and human rights attorney Nora Benavidez shares her thoughts on the future of content moderation.

It’s easy to be biased as human fact-checkers. The more big the system are, less reliable humans are for that job. The same concerns about mainstream media, good intentions in theory, very bad practically in face of huge amount of of information. The less worst solution: real-time human annotators + genAI w/o constitutional AI framework ( Anthropic have proposed a first draft in that direction even it need some improvements).