“If Meta envisions Community Notes as its primary strategy against disinformation,” its Oversight Board states, “the design of the program may limit its ability to achieve that goal.” This is the conclusion of the independent expert body to which Meta refers some of its most significant content moderation decisions. In a report published today, the Board highlights that issues such as “delays in note publication” and the low number of published notes “raise serious doubts about the ability of community notes to substantially address harmful disinformation.”
The Oversight Board issued this opinion at Meta’s request. The company behind Facebook and Instagram asked the Board for guidance on how to expand its Community Notes program globally. At present, the program only operates in the United States, where Meta launched it shortly after announcing the end of its collaboration with independent fact-checkers, just days before Donald Trump’s return to the White House. At the time, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that community notes would “start” in the U.S., leaving the door open for global expansion.
Paolo Carozza, a Board member and Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame (USA), told Engadget: “Community notes and fact-checking are not mutually exclusive. One does not have to substitute or replace the other—they can coexist, and in some situations there are very strong reasons for that coexistence. The Board has deliberately avoided any suggestion that introducing community notes should result in the elimination of fact-checking.” Maldita.es is part of Meta’s independent fact-checking program in Europe.
European fact-checkers and the future of community notes
The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), an association of more than 60 European fact-checking organizations—of which Fundación Maldita.es is a member—has “welcomed” the Oversight Board’s decision, stating that “community notes, if taken as a standalone solution, are inadequate to address harmful disinformation.”
European fact-checkers propose a “hybrid model,” in which user participation is complemented by professional expert verification, as a more effective response to the current limitations of community notes. A key issue lies in the algorithm that determines whether a user-submitted note becomes visible: it is based on consensus, meaning that only notes deemed useful by users who typically disagree are published. This leads to several consequences:
- Fewer than 10% of proposed notes become visible, and even when they do, they often appear too late to have a meaningful impact
- Users who contribute notes quickly lose motivation when their contributions are not published
- It is even more difficult for notes to appear on polarizing topics such as politics, where they may be most needed
- Contributors are anonymized, making it impossible for users to assess their expertise—for example, in a medical-related note, users cannot know whether the author is a doctor
Transparency:
Maldita.es is part of Meta’s independent fact-checking program in Europe.
Fundación Maldita.es is a founding member of the EFCSN, and its CEO, Clara Jiménez Cruz, is currently the President-elect of the network’s governing body.