Fact checking replaced by ‘Community Notes’ on Facebook

Article published 4 February 2025

Subscribe to CPSA news

Facebook has announced it will replace its fact checking system with a ‘crowd sourced’ system that could allow misinformation to run amok.

The owner of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has announced an end to fact checking on the social media website.

Facebook will instead move to a ‘crowd sourced’ system of verification known as ‘community notes’, where users collective submit fact checks and vote on their accuracy, rather than relying on specialist professional fact checkers. This system first rose to prominence on X (formerly Twitter) after the website was bought by Elon Musk in 2022. Zuckerberg has announced that Facebook, Instagram and Threads will follow suit, starting in the United States. While fact checking will continue in Australia for at least a year, it is unclear whether that timeframe will be extended, or by how much.

How does the old system work?

Facebook’s old fact-checking system works by employing independent fact checkers who are certified through the International Fact Checking Network. These fact checkers scan content on the website to identify potential cases of misinformation and disinformation then provide a correction or additional context. While content is not removed in this process, anything that is flagged as false or misleading can be limited so that fewer people see it. In Australia, Facebook employs fact checkers from three organisations. The Australian Associated Press (AAP), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology’s RMIT FactLab and AFP Fact Check, part of the Agence France-Presse international news agency.

How will the new system work?

By contrast to the traditional fact checking approach, a ‘community notes’ system relies on users to identify content which they believe to be inaccurate or false. These users then attach a note to the content explaining what they view as the inaccuracy and providing evidence to either correct it or provide more context.

Other users then vote on and review the note itself. If it receives enough positive feedback, then it is publicly attached to the initial content and becomes visible for all users. Unlike fact checking, the community notes system used on X doesn’t reduce the visibility of posts that have been flagged as false or misleading, meaning that the original post, and the community note, can continue to be viewed by all users.

In the case of X, community notes and feedback on pending corrections can only be provided by users who have signed up to the program. Users must have held an X account for longer than 6 months, have a verified phone number and must not have committed any recent violations of X’s rules in order to sign up. At this stage, it is not clear whether Facebook will also require users to register to write or vote on community notes.

Has crowd sourced fact checking been successful?

Since the 2021 rollout of crowd sourced fact checking on X, back when it was still called Twitter, there is a growing body of research showing that, in some cases, ‘community notes’ style programs are successful in debunking misinformation and limiting its spread. For example, one recent study found that content with an attached community note providing a correction or context was significantly more likely to be removed by the original user who posted it, suggesting that community notes could encourage users to limit the spread of their own inaccurate or misleading content.

However, another study found that community notes were significantly less useful for fact-checking political content. In an investigation of community notes added to election day content in the most recent US presidential election, researchers found that fewer than 5% of the studied notes were rated helpful, while just under one third of the posts that received community notes were actually able to be fact checked (rather than being opinion-based or satirical, for example).
Some commentators have also noted that crowd sourced fact checking is often too slow to actually limit the spread of misinformation, meaning that even when content is corrected, it may have already been seen by many users who will likely not see the later correction.

Others have pointed out that, even if a crowd sourcing approach can be effective, it would work even better when paired with traditional professional fact checking.

Why is Facebook getting rid of traditional fact checking?

This raises the important question of why Facebook has decided to stop using professional fact checkers rather than combining both approaches for a stronger outcome. In his announcement about the change, Mark Zuckerberg said that fact checkers have been “too politically biased” but, ironically, he failed to provide any evidence of this.

What does it mean for Australia?

For now, Facebook is continuing to contract professional fact checkers in Australia, but the switch in the US highlights the risk of misinformation, scams and conspiracy theories on social media. In our mail survey conducted last year, we found that 29% of respondents received news from word-of-mouth (friends and family), and 46% received news online, including from Facebook. We know that scams and misinformation targeting older people are a real problem, so it’s important to be cautious about stories that spread on social media.

If you are unsure about whether what your reading is true or not, try to find the story from a trusted news source like the ABC or SBS. You can also call CPSA’s info line on 1800 451 488 and we’ll try to find an answer for you.

For more information please email our media contact at media@cpsa.org.au

Stay up to date with CPSA news and media releases

Our regular email newsletter provides valuable insights and information on topics such as pension entitlements, healthcare, government policies, and more.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.