Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, is replacing fact-checkers on Facebook and Instagram with a system like X’s “community notes,” where regular users, not experts, help verify information.
The BBC reports this change comes after years of criticism about bias in traditional fact-checking. Zuckerberg claimed that professional fact-checkers, especially in the U.S., had become too politically biased, leading to more distrust instead of solving the problem.
The new system, inspired by X (formerly Twitter), lets users contribute notes under misleading posts. Other users then vote on these notes to decide if they’re helpful.
According to the BBC, this idea originated in 2021, before Elon Musk bought X, and was initially called “Birdwatch.” Like Wikipedia, the system relies on volunteers.
Over time, these contributors gain credibility and the ability to correct misinformation. BBC highlights that this approach can handle a much larger volume of content than traditional methods.
Experts told the BBC that this system is fast and scalable. For example, X claims it produces hundreds of fact-checks daily, compared to fewer than ten from Facebook’s professional fact-checkers.
Additionally, research shared by the BBC suggests community notes are often accurate (98% in a study on COVID-19) and can reduce the spread of false posts by over half.
However, not everyone agrees this change is positive. Some experts told the BBC that professional fact-checkers are still necessary to handle the most dangerous misinformation, as volunteers lack the training and objectivity to deal with high-stakes topics.
Critics worry this move might lead to more harmful content slipping through. Zuckerberg himself admitted that relaxing rules to avoid censorship could result in catching “less bad stuff,” according to the BBC.
A key part of the new system is an algorithm that ensures notes are accepted by people from different political perspectives.
X says this helps reduce bias and builds trust, but the BBC notes that over 90% of suggested community notes are rejected, meaning some accurate contributions are never used. This trade-off is intentional to maintain trust by only showing widely agreed-upon notes.
In short, the BBC explains that while community notes could help fight misinformation faster, experts believe they shouldn’t fully replace professional fact-checkers. Both systems may need to work together to ensure accuracy and prevent harmful content.
Meta’s decision to rely more on users and less on experts raises big questions about the future of fact-checking on social media.
Credit : BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g93nvrdz7o