Meta ends its fact-checking program, replacing it with Community Notes

midian182

Posts: 11,648   +176
Staff member
In brief: Facebook is making one of the biggest changes in a decade later today: it will officially end its fact-checking program in the US. In its place will be the Community Notes feature popularized on Twitter/X. And it's not just happening on Facebook – Instagram and Threads are killing off fact checking, too.

"By Monday afternoon, our fact-checking program in the US will be officially over," Meta's recently installed policy chief Joel Kaplan announced in a post on X. "That means no new fact checks and no fact checkers."

On the eve of Donald Trump's inauguration in January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company's third-party fact checkers had become too politically biased and destroyed more trust than they created. As such, they were being replaced by Community Notes.

Zuckerberg said at the time that to prevent bias, the Notes would "require agreement between people with a range of perspectives."

Meta started accepting signups for Community Notes in February.

The crowdsourced Community Notes will appear in small boxes beneath posts marked as "Readers added context."

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Mark Zuckerberg (@zuck)

The 500-word-limit Notes are designed to be used on potentially misleading, confusing, or inaccurate posts, offering corrections or clarifications. They must including a link to trusted sources.

Meta writes that contributors can rate Notes as helpful and unhelpful. The system's algorithm detects if people rate differently over time, so if enough contributors who have a history of rating differently agree that a community note is helpful, there's a better chance it will get published.

To be a Community Notes contributor, users need to be based in the U.S., over 18, have an account that's more than 6 months old and in good standing, and have a verified phone number or have set up two-factor authentication.

We've yet to see any Community Notes appear on public posts, but today's end of the fact-checking program, which was introduced in 2016, suggests the rollout is set to begin. It's still unclear what plans Meta has for Community Notes outside of the US, especially as some countries and the EU have expressed concerns about the change.

The end of the fact-checking program is just one of the initiatives Zuckerberg has introduced as an apparent appeasement to President Trump. Meta has also removed restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender and ended its DEI programs.

Permalink to story:

 
It's outrageous how META went from years pretending to care for facts to straight out blurring the truth with their latest detrimental actions by a CEO filled with fear of a convicted criminal like Trump.
 
Last edited:
Id love to see the team meetings of the fact checkers. They were so unashamedly politically biased. It must have been co-ordinated.
 
Finally, the official end of censorship and thought police.
This thing should have never existed.

Woke censorship is one of the most shameful aspects of our recent history, along with DEI, 'climate change' etc..
 
Finally, the official end of censorship and thought police.
This thing should have never existed.

Woke censorship is one of the most shameful aspects of our recent history, along with DEI, 'climate change' etc..
It's no secret MAGAts supporters are against everything related with facts, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting a criminal president that feeds them lies.
 
Facebook, is a corrupt, 1st amendment censoring platform! I stopped using Facebook, all the others, years ago! Except GAB, whom are a true 1st amendment platform!
 
It's outrageous how META went from years pretending to care for facts to straight out blurring the truth with their latest detrimental actions by a CEO filled with fear of a convicted criminal like Trump.

The fact that so many corporations immediately shifted their DEI stance once Trump came into office, shows how little DEI mattered to these companies in the first place.
 
It's outrageous how META went from years pretending to care for facts to straight out blurring the truth with their latest detrimental actions by a CEO filled with fear of a convicted criminal like Trump.

what facts, the fact checkers where continually wrong, and got fact checked themselves multiple times, it ended because everyone except deranged leftists saw the issue. If your fact checkers are all politically on the left they are no more trustworthy than fact checkers on the right.
 
I honestly could not care less. With a bit of elbow grease the FaceBook website can be wrestled into total submission.
For many years I've been using FaceBook on PC and laptop and I ONLY get to see what my FRIENDS post.
Ab-so-lu-te-ly nothing else. Zip. No ads either.
Disclaimer: I do not use the app(s) or my phone to access FaceBook so I have no opinions or advice to share on those subjects...
I assume there are reasons Meta wants users to go those routes and they probably aren't pretty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
It's no secret MAGAts supporters are against everything related with facts, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting a criminal president that feeds them lies.
Not to worry, the tariffs are one thing that can unite the country, and unlike many other things, people don't usually lie to themselves when looking at the direct affect of prices on their bank accounts.

The fact that so many corporations immediately shifted their DEI stance once Trump came into office, shows how little DEI mattered to these companies in the first place.
Sadly true. Fortunately, there are shareholders out there who have voted to keep DEI policies in place. It's just good business: DEI really does help companies secure the best talent. The people that don't get this are the same ones that don't understand that DEI was never about hiring unqualified people to begin with, or that it goes beyond hiring. My company has business resource groups for many different people, sure it includes the "typical" DEI groups, but it also includes veterans and caregivers (parents yes, but also people who care for the elderly or disabled adult children, etc., typically in their own home, which is what my family did for my grandparents for about a decade).

Facebook, is a corrupt, 1st amendment censoring platform! I stopped using Facebook, all the others, years ago! Except GAB, whom are a true 1st amendment platform!
Well, therein lies the issue: the 1st amendment only protects against the government from infringing on your free speech rights. The problem is, these platforms are private. So we have a three edged sword, and for better or worse, the platforms are on the winning side, not people like you or me.

If the government has the power to tell platforms what it can censor, what it must be transparent about (in terms of moderation decisions), etc., then the government has a power over what is considered editorial discretion - that is the platform's speech rights on what goes on on the platform. Not too dissimilar from the press being told what it can and cannot publish.

Of course, it is dissimilar in one big way that the law doesn't properly address: the rights of the people making the speech. Unlike traditional media, social media is interactive. It's not just the speech of a person on a stage in the "town square", the law wholly fails to consider what happens when the "town square" is privately owned, where a not insignificant percentage of the people congregate, and where ideas are exchanged - and moderated - by that square.

To be frank, I think we need the law to distinguish between the press and these platforms, but that would require either a Constitutional amendment or a (at least somewhat) radical Supreme Court interpretation of the law, and even then I would want to be cautious about it - things that are clearly harmful (like CSAM or "shouting fire in a crowded theater" (see the wiki article on that last one)) don't fall under the protection of the First Amendment, and such would need to be the case under any new interpretation/implementation of the law.
 
I can't believe people waste their lives on Facebook and similar platforms. Internet life (and life in general) was so much better before 2008.
 
Back