Facebook, Instagram, and Threads may be on the verge of a fundamental shift in direction: Instead of relying on independent fact-checkers, Meta plans to rely more heavily on its users in the future. The approach is reminiscent of “Community Notes,” which are already in use on Elon Musk’s X platform.

What at first sounds like greater participation and freedom of expression, however, raises an uncomfortable question: What happens if the majority is wrong?

Fact-checking is a thing of the past—now it's up to the community to decide

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had already announced plans to scale back the current fact-checking system, starting in the U.S. Instead of professional fact-checkers, users themselves will increasingly be responsible for providing feedback and context in the future.

The basic principle is simple: If a post is perceived as problematic or misleading, other users can provide additional context. This is intended to help readers better understand the statement.

That sounds democratic. After all, it should no longer be up to organizations selected solely by Meta to decide what information is considered false or misleading.

But that's exactly where the problem lies.

After all, the question of whether a claim is true cannot always be answered by a vote. When it comes to political issues, scientific questions, or events with complex backgrounds, it can be crucial who verifies the information, which sources are used, and how carefully the work is done.

The Oversight Board established by Meta therefore warns against simply viewing Community Notes as a replacement for the previous fact-checking system.

"We strongly urge Meta not to view Community Notes as a direct substitute for fact-checking and to use all the tools best suited to addressing the challenge of misinformation on its platforms."

Meta is facing headwinds from its own governance structures

The Oversight Board is a special body within the Meta ecosystem. The board began its work in 2020 and, among other things, addresses difficult issues related to content on Facebook and the company’s other platforms.

Its members include human rights activists, journalists, and former politicians, among others. At the same time, the panel is funded by Meta but is intended to operate independently.

The fact that this very body, of all places, is now warning against a solution that is too simplistic makes the discussion particularly interesting.

The board does recognize the benefits of Community Notes. They could expand discussions and provide users with additional information. At the same time, however, the board believes there is a risk that this could result in concrete harm.

The key point: A platform with billions of users is no ordinary gathering place. What is shared there can reach millions of people within a matter of hours.

The role model is Elon Musk

The new model is very similar to the approach used on X. There, too, users can create what are known as "Community Notes" to provide additional context for posts.

Meta is initially testing a similar system in 16 Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. These include, among others, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Peru.

The reports submitted there are not yet visible to all users in the pilot project. Meta apparently wants to first determine whether the system works reliably.

In principle, greater user involvement certainly offers opportunities. A large community can identify errors, provide additional sources, and draw attention to aspects that professional fact-checkers might overlook. Different perspectives can also help ensure that no single individual or institution gains too much influence over the public discourse.

But the opposite is also possible.

A well-organized group could try to deliberately influence certain posts. Misinformation could be amplified by many users, while accurate information gets lost. This is a major risk, especially when it comes to emotionally charged political issues.

When Disinformation Becomes a Political Weapon

The issue becomes particularly contentious during elections and times of social crisis.

False reports aren't just a problem because someone reads a false claim on Facebook. They can influence political decisions, pit social groups against one another, and even escalate real conflicts in tense situations.

That is precisely why critics fear that professional fact-checking will be replaced too quickly by a system in which users themselves are responsible for determining the accuracy of information.

Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, had cited criticism of the previous fact-checking model as one of the reasons for the change. In January 2025, he stated that fact-checkers in the U.S. had been “simply too politically biased” and had “destroyed more trust than they built” in the U.S.

Donald Trump, too, had repeatedly referred to fact-checking on social media as “censorship.”

This gives the decision a political dimension. It is no longer just a technical question of how a social media post is labeled. It is about the fundamental question of who, in the digital age, decides what information people consider credible.

The real challenge lies with Meta itself

Ultimately, Meta needs to strike the right balance. The company must enable freedom of expression, but at the same time, it must not pretend that the platform bears no responsibility for the consequences of its business model.

Anyone who connects billions of people and can generate significant reach with a specific post inevitably wields influence.

The crucial question, therefore, is not whether fact-checking is good or bad. The better question is: Which system most reliably prevents misinformation without unnecessarily suppressing legitimate opinions?

There's probably no easy answer to that.

Meta should therefore not have to choose between “fact-checking” and “Community Notes” as if one of the two had to go. It would make more sense to have various oversight mechanisms working together. Users can provide additional context. Experts can verify complex facts. And Meta must transparently explain the rules it follows when handling content.

What legaldata thinks about it

The idea of involving users more closely isn't fundamentally bad. On the contrary: A large community can identify errors, provide additional sources, and draw attention to aspects that professional reviewers might overlook.

But the idea that the “wisdom of the crowd” automatically leads to better information is dangerously naive.

Just because a hundred people claim that something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. And just because a hundred people confirm a piece of misinformation doesn't make it true.

From legaldata’s perspective, it would therefore be a mistake to simply replace professional fact-checking with a digital majority rule. Greater freedom of expression must not be confused with less responsibility.

Meta should view Community Notes as an additional tool—not as a convenient way to shift responsibility. Because if, in the end, only the loudest voices decide what appears to be the truth, the truth doesn’t automatically prevail. What prevails, at least initially, is whoever has the widest reach.