Fact-checkers must work together to generate better distribution models for our online verifications

Partnerships with online platforms are vital for fact-checkers who want to reach larger audiences and address disinformation on the same scale that it is occurring. Artificial intelligence helps internet companies detect potential misinformation and connect it to verifications, while mass distribution technologies help expose verifications to people who may never have heard of us. 

The online traffic and reach of the work of fact-checking organizations receives a big boost from Facebook and Google according to the figures these companies have cited about the impact of our verifications:

“Fact checks appear more than 11 million times a day combining search results globally and in Google News in five countries (Brazil, France, India, UK and US). That adds up to approximately 4 billion impressions a year.»

Google blog post, Dec 2019

“During the month of March, we displayed warnings on approximately 40 million COVID-19-related posts on Facebook, based on approximately 4,000 articles from our independent verification program partners. “When people saw those warning labels, 95% of the time they decided not to see the original content.”

Facebook Newsroom update, April 2020

The International Verification Network (IFCN) hosted a panel during Global Fact 2020 (the annual congress of fact-checkers) and co-facilitated a panel with Full Fact to explore how fact-checkers would want to partner with fact-checkers. platforms in the future, and how we must reconfigure the value of the data we distribute online.

Allow access to our data for reuse taking into account economic sustainability

In recent months, several non-profit as well as commercial organizations have approached the fact-checking community – sometimes via the IFCN, sometimes through small groups emerging from Global Fact sessions – to request the use of certain data. An example of this would be an organization requesting to scrape the results of verifications that appear through ClaimReview to display them in another context (the ClaimReview schema is a tagging system that allows search engines and social media platforms to display our verifications in other places, for example, news or search results).

It’s exciting to see proposals for new ways to use our work online, but these situations raise some questions about how prepared the fact-checking community is to respond to these types of proposals. What ethical and legal agreements should be in place for third parties who wish to use this data to ensure that it is used correctly? While many fact-checkers may be okay with donating this data to organizations for public benefit, what if some fact-checking organizations don’t want to? Do we risk setting a precedent that makes it difficult for us to later charge commercial organizations for that same data? If, as an industry, we decide to establish a monetization structure to cover the cost of producing and collecting that data, what form should it take, what is the ownership structure, and who manages it?

Expand our verifications to other platforms under collective principles

During interviews for Full Fact’s report on the challenges of online verification (forthcoming), researchers found that fact-checkers see deep value in Facebook’s independent fact-checking program beyond money. The program provides greatly improved monitoring capabilities, greater public visibility, and the ability to influence editors at other websites and media to correct misinformation. It is not surprising, therefore, that many are in favor of similar structured payment programs being introduced on other platforms.

Some fact-checkers at Global Fact raised the possibility of a syndicate or collectively owned platform to distribute fact checks and negotiate payment for ratings and data with third parties, such as platforms or other commercial organizations.

Based on discussions from our workshop at Global Fact, we believe fact-checkers would benefit from holding private discussions about the design of new programs. Fact-checkers should also consider what collective requirements, if any, we should make as an industry. For example, on standards, transparency commitments or impact reporting, before potential partners approach us individually under confidentiality agreements. Internet companies rarely share publicly available data on the spread of misinformation on their platforms. Academic research must have access to meaningful and up-to-date information.

Verifiers need to have these conversations collectively, so we can have better relationships with internet platforms and others in the future. Currently existing platform partnerships, distribution systems and funding models are not infinite, and in some cases they should not be. Fact checkers maintain standards of integrity and truth in societies, at a time when we cannot take them for granted in any country in the world. We can and must make decisions now to ensure our long-term effectiveness and existence.

The IFCN has reached out to a cross-section of verifiers around the world to structure those conversations and share ideas and suggestions with the broader community. In the coming weeks and months, fact-checkers will be invited to participate in individual and collective discussions about some of the fundamental topics and questions related to the sustainability and scalability of our efforts as a community.

We consider this to be a complementary effort to what fact-checking organizations are already doing individually to build more solid and sustainable paths to accurate and reliable information in their respective countries.

Signed by Angie Drobnic Holan (PolitiFact) | North America, Baybars Orsek (IFCN), Clara Jiménez Cruz, (Maldita.es) | Europe, Cristina Tardaguila (IFCN), David Schraven (Correctiv) | Europe, Gemma Mendoza (Rappler) | Asia, Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) | North America, Govindraj Ethiraj (Factchecker.in) | Asia, Gulin Cavus (Teyit) | MENA, Laura Zommer (Checked) | South America, Noko Makgato (Africa Check) | Africa, Phoebe Arnold (Full Fact) | Europe, Tai Nalon (Aos Fatos) | South America, Tijana Cvjetićanin (Zašto ne) | Europe, Will Moy (Full Fact) | Europe