Meta’s decision to replace fact checkers with community-driven notes has raised questions and debate. Could it signal a positive shift?

As wildfires devastated Los Angeles recently, misinformation spread rapidly online. Posts shared false videos and wrongly accused innocent individuals of looting.

This highlighted a pressing issue of the digital age: how to manage and correct misinformation effectively.

From Fact Checkers to Community Notes

In 2021, after the U.S. Capitol riots, Mark Zuckerberg praised Meta’s “industry-leading fact-checking program.” This program relied on 80 independent fact-checking organizations to combat misinformation on Facebook and Instagram.

However, Meta has moved away from this system. Zuckerberg argued that fact checkers created more mistrust than trust, particularly in the U.S. He announced a transition to a system inspired by X’s (formerly Twitter) “community notes.”

Community notes rely on users, not experts, to verify content. While some experts criticize the decision, others believe such systems could play a role in combating misinformation.

How Community Notes Work

Community notes, originally called “Birdwatch,” started in 2021. Inspired by Wikipedia, it allows unpaid volunteers to address false information. Contributors rate corrective notes, and those who gain trust over time can write their own.

This model has proven scalable. X reports hundreds of fact checks daily, compared to fewer than ten from expert fact checkers on Facebook, according to some analyses. Studies also show community notes can be highly accurate and significantly reduce misinformation’s spread.

Keith Coleman, who leads community notes at X, claims the system covers more content faster and with broader trust than traditional fact-checking. However, critics argue it lacks the consistency and expertise of professionals.

The Bias Debate

Zuckerberg’s criticism of fact checkers echoes longstanding accusations of political bias in Big Tech. Many conservatives believe platforms suppress their views, while others fear central fact-checking stifles controversial content.

Professional fact checkers counter these claims, arguing they address dangerous misinformation and emerging harmful narratives. However, critics point out that community-driven systems may struggle with consistency and expertise.

Trust and Algorithms

To avoid bias, X uses algorithms to select community notes viewed positively across diverse political perspectives. This approach limits the number of notes displayed, ensuring trust remains high but leaving many notes unused.

Meta plans to adopt similar safeguards, but ensuring broad acceptance will be challenging. Research suggests most proposed community notes never reach users.

Meta’s Next Steps

Even with this shift, Meta will retain thousands of moderators to enforce platform rules on harmful content. However, it will relax some policies on sensitive topics like immigration and gender, potentially increasing the spread of divisive content.

Experts express concerns about Meta’s move. While community notes may complement fact-checking efforts, many argue professional oversight remains essential.

Professor Tom Stafford of Sheffield University believes community-driven approaches are legitimate but should not replace professional fact checkers entirely.

As Meta implements this new system, its effectiveness remains uncertain. Will community notes succeed where fact checkers struggled, or will they create new challenges?