What are fact checkers?
On a basic level fact checking is just verifying any information that is being presented. They allow for the freedom of speech to go uninfringed by letting anyone post what they will, but still maintain and ensure that misinformation does not run rampant. In the modern age, it is incredibly easy to post misinformation, purposely or otherwise. Fact checking was added to numerous social media platforms starting in 2016, starting with Facebook, with other major sites like Google, Twitter, and Instagram. Fact checks take many different forms, but they all fulfill the same purpose of showing if and what misinformation is being shown in a news story, article, or even posts by the everyday person. In most cases, fact checkers are third party companies that are brought to the platforms. A majority of these companies are nonprofit, allowing them to remain largely unbiased. Many companies were used for different areas of expertise, such as Politifact.com for political coverage, Factcheck.org for general fact checking, and Snopes.com, which started as a smaller scale with urban legends and hoaxes, but has grown to cover any major news stories. Many of these fact checkers did not get paid by their respective sites, but relied on donations and other forms of income. They were often run by experts in their respective fields, or journalists who knew how to get in contact with the experts.
Fact checkers take different forms across the many social media platforms. On Instagram and Facebook, which are both owned by the parent company Meta, a pop up appears over posts that have been flagged by users for a fact check. After being reviewed by the third party company, this pop up will display if that post has been shown to be spreading misinformation. Twitter also used similar image blurring, but due to primarily being a text based site, they had a drop down tab under the posts, saying when the content has been flagged for notes. Twitter did not have third party companies for the majority of its Birdwatch system, but some were brought on in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Some examples of fact checks
 |
| Figure 1. Twitter's Birdwatch |
 |
| Figure 2. Instagram's Fact Check |
 |
| Figure 3. Facebook's Fact Check |
When and why were fact checkers implemented?
Across many social media platforms, different reasons were given for the implementation of fact checking. Many appeared around the same time, roughly around 2019, though Facebook pioneered the trend among larger social media platforms by implementing some amount of fact checking in in 2016. Mark Zuckerberg’s initial reason for adding the fact checking system was, “...we have a new kind of responsibility to enable people to have the most meaningful conversations, and to build a space where people can be informed.” Notably, the implementation of the checkers and quote was given back in 2016, right after Donald Trump had been elected president. At the time, there was a huge amount of online discourse talking about stolen elections and Russia influencing the election, among other things. Of course, this was not Facebook adding these fact checkers due to noble intentions, it was only after there was a large amount of criticism and outcry about how social media platforms allowed misinformation to run rampant that they decided they had a responsibility to uphold the truth. Almost every adult uses social media in some way or another, so it is vital that the information that is spread through the platforms is truthful, as it affects all the users of them. If the truth is not platformed, then the misinformation that will run rampant will only serve those already dominant in society, rich white men, who own these social media platforms. For example, when misinformation is given about what is put out by the Republican presidential nominee in a live debate about Haitians eating people's pets, that minority group will then face hate and backlash, even if what he said was blatantly untrue.
Other tech companies’ platforms also began adding fact checking to their sites. Google added theirs shortly after Facebook in April of 2017. X(formerly known as Twitter) and Instagram lagged behind a bit and started theirs in 2019. Google directly stated its implementation was also due to the misinformation surrounding the 2016 election. “As we make fact checks more visible in search results, we believe people will have an easier time reviewing and assessing these fact checks, and making their own informed opinions.” (Cong-Yu, Google). Instagram similarly stated the reason for their implementation was to combat a general sense of misinformation that was occurring on the platform. X was more specific in its reason, citing the growing concern of COVID-19 and the information being spread about it.
The Effect of Fact Checking
The addition to fact checkers was met with a mixed reception. Due to the largely political nature of the, often reporting on stories or tweets of prominent political figures, they were controversial. Left leaning sources were more in favor of fact checking, while the the right leaning side claimed that the fact checkers were biased and favored the Democrats, despite the impartial nature of the fact checkers.
 |
| Figure 4. |
On all the platforms that implemented fact checking, if a post was flagged for containing misinformation, they were less likely to appear on people’s feeds, and if they were, it had a prominent display showing that it contained misleading information. This is to say, the implementation of fact checking was effective for its intended purpose: stopping the spread of misinformation. However, due to how they were viewed as skewed by politically right leaning people, their effectiveness is slightly stunted by political bias. Not in the sense that the fact checkers themselves were biased, but the willingness of the people interacting with them was affected by their political identity.
The Removal of Fact Checking
Fact checking system was cut off or replaced in 2025. Facebook and Instagram followed X’s example and replaced the fact checking system with community notes. Now, instead of companies specialized in verifying information, it was up to the everyday users of the sites to police their own content. These community notes are still somewhat useful in their own right. They allow people to add information that may have been left out of the initial misleading post, but they have some obvious drawbacks. There is no longer any expert driven review, so the community notes themselves have a much higher likelihood to be biased or incorrect themselves as opposed to a third party company. Community notes also do not affect how content appears in the algorithm, whereas before, fact checkers actually made an effort to ensure that misleading information stayed at least partly contained. There is no such effort being made with community notes. Communiaity notes as a system is much more digestible to right leaning political figures, as what was once viewed as a biased system that infringed their freedom of speech has now been turned into a system that lets the people speak for themselves.
The removal of fact checkers was a fairly swift process across social media. In January of 2025, fact checkers were removed from all Meta owned social media. This coincides with the start of Donald Trump’s second term in office. Mark Zuckerberg said, "The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech," clearly tying the decision to remove fact checking with Trump's reinstatement of power. With how inflammatory Trump is and how often he and his political team put out misinformation, it is clear why the billionaire owners of these social media platforms wanted something that would put their ally in check removed. Under the guise of freedom of speech, Zuckerberg and Musk stripped away a method of getting the correct information out to the public.
Real negative effects of the removal of the fact checkers can be seen on sites like X right now. There are numerous AI generated videos on the site covering the war with Iran. Footage of strikes is confusing and unclear about their authenticity, with no one being able to confirm the reality of the situation. Like many tech companies, X has implemented an AI on the site Grok, with the purpose of partly assisting in community notes. In reality, the AI itself is generating fake images and giving out contradictory information. The human fact checkers were taken down for the purpose of propping up this AI, which is failing at its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Fact checkers as a system are a useful way to uphold freedom of speech while still ensuring truth is spread. Almost every adult uses social media in some form or another in the modern day, so having fact checkers for the information that appears on the sites is a powerful way to maintain factual information, or at least to keep the views on there balanced. Powerful political figures like Donald Trump ran on cutting back taxes on the rich, who are the owners of these social media empires. The removal of the fact checkers was to only aid in obfuscating the untruth in people like Donald Trump and their statements. Like most things, fact checkers play their part in politics, and their removal is only in aid of those already in power.
References
Tune, H. (2025, April 28). Public Support for Fact-Checking on Social Media Remains Strong, Despite Meta’s Policy Change - CCI Research & Innovation Center. CCI Research & Innovation Center. https://cci.utk.edu/ric/2025/04/28/public-support-for-fact-checking-on-social-media-remains-strong-despite-metas-policy-change/
Adam, D. (2019). Scientific American. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-fact-checking-work-on-social-media/
Zahn, M. (2025, January 7). Here’s why Meta ended fact-checking, according to experts. ABC News. https://abcnews.com/US/why-did-meta-remove-fact-checkers-experts-explain/story?id=117417445
Siwakoti, S., Yadav, K., Bariletto, N., Zanotti, L., Erdoğdu, U., & Shapiro, J. N. (2021). How COVID drove the evolution of fact-checking. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-69
Kleinman, Z., McMahon, L., & Subramanian, C. (2025, January 7). Meta to replace “biased” fact-checkers with moderation by users. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly74mpy8klo
Culliford, E., & Paul, K. (2020, May 31). With fact-checks, Twitter takes on a new kind of task. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/with-fact-checks-twitter-takes-on-a-new-kind-of-task-idUSKBN23701H/
Gibbs, S. (2017, April 7). Google to display fact-checking labels to show if news is true or false. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-to-display-fact-checking-labels-to-show-if-news-is-true-or-false
Instagram. (2019, December 16). Combatting Misinformation on Instagram | Instagram. About.instagram.com. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/combatting-misinformation-on-instagram
Tiny Changes Let False Claims About COVID-19, Voting Evade Facebook Fact Checks. (2020, October 9). KPBS Public Media; KPBS. https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/10/09/tiny-changes-let-false-claims-about-covid-19
Walker, M., & Gottfried, J. (2019, June 27). Republicans far more likely than Democrats to say fact-checkers tend to favor one side. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/27/republicans-far-more-likely-than-democrats-to-say-fact-checkers-tend-to-favor-one-side/
Comments
Post a Comment