International Fact-Checking Network questions Meta's move to replace fact-checking program with Community Notes
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) wrote an open letter questioning Mark Zuckerberg's decision to replace Meta's fact-checking program with the user-powered Community Notes feature amid the threat of disinformation.
"Nine years ago, we wrote to you about the real-world harms caused by false information on Facebook," the IFCN said in the open letter dated Jan. 9. "In response, Meta created a fact-checking program that helped protect millions of users from hoaxes and conspiracy theories."
But Zuckerberg, it noted, announced ending the 2016 fact-checking program in the United States "because of concerns about 'too much censorship,'" which the IFCN said was "a decision that threatens to undo nearly a decade of progress in promoting accurate information online."
The IFCN said the program was a "strong step forward" in encouraging factual accuracy online, noting that it helped Facebook, Instagram, and Threads users have a positive experience by reducing the spread of false and misleading information in their feeds.
"We believe—and data shows—most people on social media are looking for reliable information to make decisions about their lives and to have good interactions with friends and family," it said. "Informing users about false information in order to slow its spread, without censoring, was the goal."
"Fact-checkers strongly support freedom of expression, and we’ve said that repeatedly and formally in last year’s Sarajevo statement," the IFCN said.
It was referring to its statement in the Bosnia and Herzegovina capital during the 11th GlobalFact meeting, where it affirmed fact-checking as "essential to free speech because it requires openness, transparency, and preservation of information."
"The freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech," it added.
The IFCN dismissed as false Zuckerberg's claims that the fact-checking program has become "a tool to censor" and that fact-checkers "have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US."
"This is false, and we want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record," it said.
It noted that Meta required all fact-checking partners to meet strict nonpartisanship standards—no affiliations with political parties or candidates, no policy advocacy, and unwavering commitment to objectivity and transparency—through the IFCN's verification.
News organizations undergo rigorous annual verification, including independent assessment and peer review, according to the IFCN.
Meta has also "consistently praised their rigor and effectiveness," even extending the fact-checking program to Threads, the IFCN emphasized.
The IFCN said Meta never gave fact-checkers the authority to remove content or accounts despite Zuckerberg's comments that "suggest fact-checkers were responsible for censorship."
It pointed out that his comments could fuel perceptions of people who have often blamed and harassed fact-checkers for Meta’s actions.
"But the reality is that Meta staff decided on how content found to be false by fact-checkers should be downranked or labeled," it said, adding that over the years, several fact-checkers have suggested to Meta how it could improve the labeling to be less intrusive—and avoid even the appearance of censorship—but never acted on those suggestions.
The IFCN also noted that Meta exempted politicians and political candidates from fact-checking "as a precautionary measure" even when they spread known falsehoods.
"Fact-checkers, meanwhile, said that politicians should be fact-checked like anyone else," it said.
When it asked for fact-checking program's results several times, the IFCN said Meta "provided only limited information."
Still, it said the program was effective, with Zuckerberg even boasting of its "industry-leading fact-checking program" in a Congress testimony.
Doubt over Community Notes
The IFCN also cast doubt over the Community Notes program, which X has been using. It lets users add context under a post, image, or video through a crowdsourced system.
"We do not believe that this type of program will result in a positive user experience, as X has demonstrated," the IFCN said. "Research shows that many Community Notes never get displayed, because they depend on widespread political consensus rather than on standards and evidence for accuracy."
"Even so, there is no reason Community Notes couldn’t co-exist with the third-party fact-checking program; they are not mutually exclusive," it added.
The IFCN said Community Notes and professional fact-checking "would have strong potential as a new model for promoting accurate information."
"The need for this is great: If people believe social media platforms are full of scams and hoaxes, they won’t want to spend time there or do business on them," it said.
Post-Trump victory
The IFCN also questioned the timing of Zuckerberg's move, which was after the reelection of Donald Trump as US president.
It noted how Trump told Zuckerberg's move was "probably" in response to his threats against the latter.
"Some of the journalists that are part of our fact-checking community have experienced similar threats from governments in the countries where they work," it said, "so we understand how hard it is to resist this pressure."
The IFCN pointed out that while the fact-checking program applies only in the US for now, there are other similar programs in over 100 countries, some of which are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence, and even genocide.
"If Meta decides to stop the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places," it said.
"This moment underlines the need for more funding for public service journalism. Fact-checking is essential to maintaining shared realities and evidence-based discussion, both in the United States and globally. The philanthropic sector has an opportunity to increase its investment in journalism at a critical time," it continued.
Public service journalism
Amid Zuckerberg's move, the IFCN said there's a need for more funding for public service journalism, as fact-checking "is essential to maintaining shared realities and evidence-based discussion."
"The philanthropic sector has an opportunity to increase its investment in journalism at a critical time," it said.
Though the move was a "step backward," the IFCN expressed hope that it can "make up this ground in the years to come."
It expressed readiness to work again with Meta or any technology platform in engaging fact-checking.
"Access to truth fuels freedom of speech, empowering communities to align their choices with their values," it said. "As journalists, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom of the press, ensuring that the pursuit of truth endures as a cornerstone of democracy."
The open letter has over 70 signatories to date.
It came after Zuckerberg's video announcement on Jan. 7. "We're gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms," the Meta CEO said. "We're going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the US."
Apart from adopting the Community Notes system, Meta will also simplify its content policies and get rid of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just "out of touch with mainstream discourse."
Zuckerberg, at the time, expressed excitement about the opportunity to "restore free expression."
While he acknowledged that "it'll take time to get this right," he stressed that "the bottom line is that after years of having our content moderation work focus primarily on removing content, it is time to focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our systems and getting back to our roots about giving people a voice."