Transition to Community Notes Sparks Criticism
Meta’s recent decision to end its partnership with third-party fact-checking organizations has drawn backlash from its independent partners. CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on January 7 that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads will now adopt a Community Notes approach, relying on user-reported content rather than professional fact-checkers. Zuckerberg attributed the shift to concerns over “mistakes and censorship” by fact-checkers, a sentiment echoed by Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief global affairs officer.
Meta plans to implement this approach initially in the United States, replacing the work of 10 long-standing independent fact-checking groups. PolitiFact, one of Meta’s partners since 2016, expressed disappointment at the announcement. Executive Director Aaron Sharockman refuted allegations of censorship, emphasizing that the fact-checking teams only provided additional context and information for potentially harmful misinformation but did not control content removal.
Jesse Stiller, managing editor of Check Your Fact, echoed these sentiments, explaining that fact-checking groups merely supplied information to Meta, which then decided how to apply it. “Anyone who says fact-checkers censored content misunderstands the process,” he remarked.
Allegations of Bias and Defending Independence
Meta’s justification for ending the partnerships included concerns about potential bias among fact-checkers. Kaplan stated that “experts, like everyone else, have their own biases.” This claim was dismissed by fact-checking organizations, which emphasized their commitment to neutrality. Stiller maintained that his team at Check Your Fact adhered to a balanced approach, regardless of political alignment.
Angie Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, defended the integrity of the fact-checkers, noting that Meta required them to follow a strict Code of Principles ensuring nonpartisanship and transparency. Sharockman argued that the diversity of the 10 independent groups working with Meta made it unlikely for bias to persist unnoticed. “Independent teams arriving at the same conclusion is a strong signal of reliability,” he said.
Despite the pushback, Meta seems set on Community Notes as the replacement system, mirroring X’s model under Elon Musk. However, Stiller and others pointed out flaws in X’s implementation, with studies showing inaccuracies in the Community Notes system.
A Sudden Yet Not Unexpected Shift
The announcement surprised many fact-checking organizations, particularly given their recent successes. Stiller noted that 2024 was Check Your Fact’s best year in terms of coverage and traffic, attributing much of the growth to its partnership with Meta. However, others, like Sharockman, saw the move as a possibility due to ongoing criticism and lawsuits targeting the fact-checking program.
Sharockman acknowledged the potential of community-driven models, citing Wikipedia’s volunteer-based fact-checking as an example. However, he criticized Meta’s decision to rely solely on Community Notes without conducting adequate testing. “Replacing independent experts entirely with an unproven system is risky,” he cautioned.
As Meta transitions away from professional fact-checking, its platforms face increased scrutiny over whether the Community Notes approach can effectively combat misinformation without compromising accuracy and neutrality.
