Meta is ditching fact checkers for X-style community notes. Will they work?

Meta, the company led by Mark Zuckerberg, is making significant changes to how it handles misinformation on its platforms. Recently, during a series of devastating fires in Los Angeles, a wave of false information spread rapidly across social media. Users shared misleading videos and falsely accused innocent individuals of looting. This situation highlighted a pressing issue in the age of social media: how to effectively manage and correct the spread of misinformation. Mark Zuckerberg has been at the forefront of this discussion, especially after the events of January 6, 2021, when false claims about the US presidential election fueled the Capitol riots. At that time, Zuckerberg testified before Congress, proudly discussing Meta's fact-checking program, which relied on 80 independent fact-checkers to combat misinformation on Facebook and Instagram. However, four years later, Zuckerberg has acknowledged that this system is no longer effective. He stated that 'fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US. ' In response, he announced a new approach inspired by X's community notes system, where users, rather than experts, will determine the accuracy of information. This shift has raised eyebrows among experts and fact-checkers, who question Zuckerberg's motives. Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the Security, Trust and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech, expressed concern that Zuckerberg's decision seems to cater to the new administration and Elon Musk, the owner of X. Despite the criticism, Mantzarlis acknowledges that community notes could play a role in addressing misinformation. The community notes system, which began as 'Birdwatch' in 2021, draws inspiration from Wikipedia, where volunteers contribute to editing and improving content. Like Wikipedia, community notes rely on unpaid contributors to identify and correct misinformation. Contributors can rate notes that address false or misleading posts, and over time, some users earn the ability to write their own notes. Currently, the community notes platform boasts nearly a million contributors. Mantzarlis argues that this type of system can lead to faster and more numerous fact-checks. One of the main advantages of community notes is their scalability; as the user base grows, so does the pool of volunteer contributors. According to X, community notes generate hundreds of fact checks daily, while Facebook's expert fact-checkers manage fewer than ten. An analysis of 205 community notes related to Covid found that 98% were accurate, demonstrating the potential effectiveness of this approach. Additionally, community notes can significantly reduce the viral spread of misleading posts, with X claiming that they can cut the reach of false information by more than half. Keith Coleman, who oversees community notes for X, argues that Meta's transition to this new system represents a more capable approach to fact-checking. He stated, 'Community notes are already covering a vastly wider range of content than previous systems. ' However, Zuckerberg's criticism of fact-checkers has sparked debate. He accused them of bias, echoing a long-standing belief among some conservatives that Big Tech censors their views. Critics argue that centralized fact-checking can stifle valuable discussions on controversial topics. Silkie Carlo, director of the UK civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, warned that allegations of bias in Big Tech have emerged from various political perspectives. On the other hand, Baybars Orsek, managing director of Logically Facts, which provides fact-checking services to Meta in the UK, contends that professional fact-checkers are essential for addressing the most harmful misinformation. He argues that community-driven systems alone lack the consistency and expertise needed to tackle dangerous content. Some experts believe that trust in fact-checkers has eroded, particularly among conservatives, leading to a backlash against their authority. Mantzarlis suggests that fact-checkers became perceived as arbiters of truth, which upset politically motivated individuals and resulted in targeted attacks against them. To maintain trust across the political spectrum, X employs an algorithm to select which community notes are displayed. This algorithm aims to ensure that notes are rated helpful by a diverse range of users. However, research indicates that over 90% of proposed community notes go unused, raising concerns that accurate notes may not reach the audience they need. Despite these challenges, X argues that displaying more notes could undermine the system's credibility. Even with the removal of fact-checkers, Meta will continue to employ thousands of moderators to enforce content rules, removing harmful material such as graphic violence and child exploitation. However, Meta is also easing restrictions on politically divisive topics, which has raised alarms about the potential for increased harmful content. Experts worry that this aspect of Meta's announcement could lead to more misinformation being allowed on the platform. In conclusion, while some experts see the potential for community notes to be a valuable tool in combating misinformation, many believe that professional fact-checkers should not be entirely replaced. A balanced approach that incorporates both community-driven efforts and professional oversight is essential for effectively addressing the challenges posed by misinformation.