What are fact-checkers and what is the verification system that will replace them at Meta

Earlier this week, Mark Zuckerberg caught the Meta community off guard by announcing a significant overhaul of their content moderation system, which has sparked a wide range of opinions. One of the most talked-about changes is the replacement of fact-checkers with a community notes system similar to the one used by another platform known as X.

Zuckerberg stated that fact-checkers have been “too politically biased and have eroded trust more than they’ve built it.” This is why they decided to end the system that Meta has used for nine years, initially implementing the change in the United States and gradually expanding it to other countries.

Verification organizations and fact-checking professionals have strongly opposed Meta’s decision. To better understand this conflict, let’s explore what fact-checkers do and how they operate.

How Fact-Checkers Operate

In 2016, Meta launched its independent fact-checking program, employing verifiers in various countries worldwide. The tech giant currently collaborates with over 100 fact-checkers certified by the IFCN (International Fact-Checking Network) or the EFCSN (European Fact-Checking Standards Network).

Fact-checkers or verifiers are responsible for tagging misleading, false, or erroneous content on social networks like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. However, these independent professionals do not determine content moderation. “They focus on ensuring the legitimacy and accuracy of information, while we take the necessary steps to inform people when content is rated,” as explained in Meta’s transparency section.

The Verification Process at Meta

After reviewing and verifying content, fact-checkers can classify it into various levels: false, altered, partially false, missing context, satire, and true. Depending on the label the content receives, Meta takes actions of varying severity.

Additionally, Meta includes a notification on content flagged by verifiers, allowing users to access more information and context, except for posts classified as satire or true.

The distribution and reach of content may also be affected. “We significantly reduce the distribution of false or altered posts and, to a lesser extent, partially false posts. For content labeled as missing context, we focus on providing more information from information verifiers.”

Finally, temporary restrictions are applied to profiles that regularly share false or altered content, such as not recommending them, reducing their visibility, and prohibiting monetization, advertising, or registering as news pages.

Meta’s New Community Notes System

Meta no longer views its verification system as effective and emphasizes the importance of free speech, encouraging people to make their own judgments. The tech giant even asserted that its fact-checking program has “become a tool for censorship.”

In this shift towards a new era of “freedom of expression,” Meta will implement the community notes system used by X. “We’ve seen this approach work on X, where they empower their community to decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, with individuals from diverse perspectives determining what type of context is beneficial for others.”

To take part in community notes, registration and approval by Meta are necessary. Users can already join the waiting lists on Facebook and Instagram (this also applies to Threads) to enroll in the program.

Registered users will be responsible for authoring and rating community notes. And, as is done on X, the notes will require consensus among multiple people who may hold different views.

Reactions from Verification Organizations

Meta’s decision is risky, not only because it eliminates the work of qualified professionals, thus favoring the spread of disinformation under the guise of misunderstood freedom of expression, but also because Meta’s social networks are not like X (except for Threads).

This implies that the application of community notes could be even less effective on Meta’s networks than on Musk’s platform, as they are not as focused on microblogging and have less open communities, being more oriented towards fostering close ties.

Regarding the opinion of verification organizations, Angie Holan, director of the IFCN, was emphatic in a statement published on X. Holan stated that the decision will harm users and pointed directly to “the strong political pressure from a new administration and its supporters” as the catalyst for this measure.

She also emphasized that “data verification journalism has never censored or removed posts; it has added information and context to controversial claims, and has debunked false content and conspiracy theories. The fact-checkers who worked with Meta follow a Code of Principles that requires impartiality and transparency.”

Here’s my statement on @Meta ending factchecking program. pic.twitter.com/hyAvXKCEXO

— Angie Drobnic Holan (@AngieHolan) January 7, 2025

In turn, the EFCSN has condemned Meta’s statements linking fact-checking to censorship and expressed its disappointment with the company’s recent decisions. Clara Jiménez Cruz, president of the EFCSN, stated: “This seems more like a politically motivated move in the context of the incoming Donald Trump administration in the United States than a decision based on evidence.”

Furthermore, the EFCSN also urges the EU to “stand firm against such political pressure and not be intimidated in its efforts to stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation on large online platforms.”

Photo: Flux Schnell