Tommaso Canetta, the author of the article, works for Facta, a fact-checking organization mentioned in Maldita’s report

Fact-checking and Community Notes are not opposing alternatives and the idea, recently voiced by the chairman and CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, to substitute the former with the latter is plainly bad for many reasons. Not least that Community Notes already rely heavily on the work of fact-checking organizations. Should the resources available for fact-checking organizations reduce dramatically, and this will happen if and when Meta ends its fact-checking program outside the US, the repercussions will be felt in many other fields, X’s Community Notes included.

A recent report by Maldita.es, titled “Faster, Trusted, and More Useful: The Impact of Fact-Checkers in X’s Community Notes”, quantifies the significant influence of fact-checking organizations in the Community Notes program on X (formerly Twitter) in the five biggest official languages in the EU: German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Polish. The study analyzed over 1.17 million community notes published in 2024 and the results are clear.

The Influence of Fact-Checking Organizations

Fact-checking organizations are the third most frequently cited sources in Community Notes globally, following X itself and Wikipedia. These notes, backed by fact-checking organizations, are generally considered more reliable and have a higher chance of becoming visible on the platform.

Fact-checking organizations play a significant role in the credibility of information shared online. Although only 3.7% of all proposed notes globally include a reference to a fact-checking organization, this percentage is still notable when compared to other widely cited sources. For instance, Wikipedia is the most frequently cited domain at 8%, while YouTube follows fact-checkers at 2.9%.

The fact that fact-checking organizations surpass a $455 billion global video platform in relevance highlights their crucial role in verifying information. Several prominent fact-checkers, such as Snopes and Politifact, as well as media outlets with in-house fact-checking teams like Reuters, AP, and The Washington Post, rank among the top 50 most-cited sources in proposed notes.

English plays a dominant role in this ranking, as 62% of all proposed notes are in English, and 48% of the top 50 most-cited domains are predominantly published in English. However, fact-checking organizations in other languages also hold significant influence. In Spanish, the second most frequent language in Community Notes (9.6% of proposed notes), Maldita.es ranks 11th, with three other Spanish-speaking fact-checking organizations from Spain, Argentina, and Mexico also in the top 50. In Italian, Facta.news ranks second, while in Polish, the non-profit fact-checking organization Demagog holds the 10th position.

Overall, in each of the five most widely spoken official EU languages—German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Polish—at least one fact-checking organization appears in the top 20 most-cited domains in Community Notes, demonstrating the widespread impact of fact-checkers across different linguistic communities.

Community Notes that reference fact-checking organizations are more likely to be rated as useful by users and, therefore, more likely to be displayed alongside tweets containing misinformation. While only 8.3% of all proposed notes on X become visible, this figure rises to 12% for notes that cite fact-checking sources and 15.2% for those referencing European fact-checkers.

On average, notes with fact-checker evidence are proposed 23 minutes earlier than usual and become visible 24 minutes faster than the median time for all notes. This suggests that fact-checking organizations play an essential role in ensuring timely and accurate information reaches users.

However, despite their effectiveness, over 85% of notes citing fact-checkers do not become visible. This is largely due to X’s emphasis on “consensus among diverse users” rather than prioritizing factual accuracy when determining which notes to display. As if factual information should please the various personal or political interests of those who populate the platforms (since, in theory, anyone can participate in Community Notes if they are allowed to by X). But impartial information is exactly the opposite of this concept: providing information based on facts that can be verified by anyone, even if they contradict partisan or even widely accepted beliefs. Otherwise, we would still have to believe that the earth is flat, or submit to those who believe it because scientific evidence to the contrary does not please them. The report highlights that this system allows a significant amount of valuable information to remain hidden, thus allowing misleading, false or inaccurate content to spread unchecked.

Recommendations for Future Platforms

With other social media giants such as Meta and YouTube considering implementing similar crowdsourced models, Maldita’s report emphasizes the importance of learning from X’s shortcomings. It recommends the following key improvements:

• Prioritizing notes with high-quality sources and expert knowledge over mere consensus
• Ensuring timely visibility of notes addressing highly viral misinformation
• Preventing manipulation by organized groups or multiple-account users
• Implementing consequences for repeat offenders who spread misinformation, such as revoking verification badges or monetization privileges
• Ensuring that platforms do not interfere with the visibility of notes due to external pressures

Key Takeaways

The findings from Maldita.es underscore the critical role that fact-checkers play in maintaining information integrity on social media. While X’s Community Notes system has demonstrated some potential in countering misinformation, its effectiveness is hindered by its reliance on consensus rather than factual accuracy. This should be changed to better counter dis and misinformation, and the larger consequences of an eventual shrinking of the fact-checking community should not be underestimated.

For more insights, the full report by Maldita.es is available here.