Meta, the parent company of social media giants Facebook and Instagram, is making a bold move by transitioning from a reliance on professional fact-checkers to a community-driven approach akin to the system used by X, formerly known as Twitter. This decision has sparked a significant debate within the tech and information sectors. The current model, which involves 80 independent third-party fact-checkers, is being phased out in favor of community notes, a system that relies on unpaid contributors to flag and correct misinformation. This change aims to enhance the speed and scale of fact-checking efforts while maintaining trust across diverse political perspectives. However, the decision has not been without controversy.
Mark Zuckerberg's decision to replace professional fact-checkers with community notes has drawn criticism from several quarters. The co-chair of Meta's Oversight Board has voiced concerns, citing "huge problems" with this shift. Meanwhile, Alexios Mantzarlis, a prominent figure in the fact-checking community, criticized Zuckerberg's decision as pandering to both the incoming administration and Elon Musk. Despite these criticisms, Zuckerberg stands firm in his belief that traditional fact-checkers have been too politically biased, particularly in the United States, and have consequently eroded public trust.
Community notes have demonstrated their potential effectiveness, with research indicating that these notes can significantly reduce the viral spread of misleading posts, cutting it by more than half. Furthermore, they increase the likelihood that the original poster will delete the misleading content by up to 80%. This approach also greatly expands the volume of fact-checks, producing hundreds daily compared to the mere ten or so managed by Facebook's expert fact-checkers.
Professor Tom Stafford has described community notes as a "fundamentally legitimate approach" to fact-checking but emphasizes that they should not be the sole method. He argues that crowd-sourcing can serve as a useful component of an information moderation system but should be complemented by professional oversight. Professional fact-checkers are vital for targeting dangerous misinformation and identifying emerging harmful narratives.
"Crowd-sourcing can be a useful component of [an] information moderation system, but it should not be the only component." – Professor Tom Stafford
The quality of community notes is noteworthy. An analysis of 205 notes related to Covid found that 98% were accurate, showcasing their capacity to deliver reliable fact-checks. The system on X requires consensus from contributors with diverse perspectives to prevent bias in ratings. However, it is also worth noting that over 90% of proposed community notes are never utilized, which raises questions about efficiency and effectiveness.
Despite these advancements, the departure from professional fact-checking has prompted concerns about Meta's strategy. Mantzarlis underscores the need for more contributions at a faster pace to address the ever-evolving landscape of misinformation.
"get more fact checks, more contributions, faster" – Alexios Mantzarlis
Zuckerberg's rationale for this transition highlights a desire to create a scalable solution capable of responding swiftly and impartially across the political spectrum.
"Meta replaces existing fact checking program with approach that can scale to cover more content, respond faster and is trusted across the political spectrum" – Mark Zuckerberg
Nonetheless, some remain skeptical of this shift. Critics argue it risks allowing unchecked misinformation to proliferate on platforms used by billions worldwide. They stress that while community notes can augment efforts to combat falsehoods, professional input remains essential for comprehensive and effective fact-checking.