Fact-Checkers vs. The Crowd: The Future of Misinformation Control on Social Media

Ayndri

Research Analyst - Policy & Advocacy, CyberPeace

PUBLISHED ON

Apr 10, 2025

Introduction

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide. This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work

Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool.
Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone.

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias.

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability.

Conclusion

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large. This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take. Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics.

References

‍

PUBLISHED ON

Apr 10, 2025

Related Blogs

Responsibility Of Big Tech In Countering Misinformation: I&B Minister Calls For Greater Accountability

November 20, 2024

Introduction

The Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw addressed the Press Council of India on the occasion of National Press Day regarding emergent concerns in the digital media and technology landscape. Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw has identified four major challenges facing news media in India, including fake news, algorithmic bias, artificial intelligence, and fair compensation. He emphasized the need for greater accountability and fairness from Big Tech to combat misinformation and protect democracy. Vaishnaw argued that platforms do not verify information posted online, leading to the spread of false and misleading information. He called on online platforms and Big Tech to combat misinformation and protect democracy.

Key Concerns Highlighted by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw

Misinformation: Due to India's unique sensitivities, digital platforms should adopt country-specific responsibilities and metrics. The Minister also questioned the safe harbour principle, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content.
Algorithmic Biases: The prioritisation of viral content, which is often divisive, by social media algorithms can have serious implications on societal peace.
Impact of AI on intellectual Property: The training of AI on pre-existing datasets presents the ethical challenge of robbing original creators of their rights to their intellectual property
Fair compensation: Traditional news media is increasingly facing financial strain since news consumption is shifting rapidly to social media platforms, creating uneven compensation dynamics.

‍

Cyberpeace Insights

Misinformation: Marked by routine upheavals and moral panics, Indian society is vulnerable to the severe impacts of fake news, including mob violence, political propaganda, health misinformation and more. Inspired by the EU's Digital Services Act, 2022, and other related legislation that addresses hate speech and misinformation, the Indian Minister has called for revisiting the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. However, any legislation on misinformation must strike a balance between protecting the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, and privacy while safeguarding citizens from its harmful effects.
Algorithmic Biases: Social media algorithms are designed to boost user engagement since this increases advertisement revenue. This leads to the creation of filter bubbles- exposure to personalized information online and echo chambers interaction with other users with the same opinions that align with their worldview. These phenomena induce radicalization of views, increase intolerance fuel polarization in public discourse, and trigger the spread of more misinformation. Tackling this requires algorithmic design changes such as disincentivizing sensationalism, content labelling, funding fact-checking networks, etc. to improve transparency.
Impact of AI on Intellectual Property: AI models are trained on data that may contain copyrighted material. It can lead to a loss of revenue for primary content creators, while tech companies owning AI models may financially benefit disproportionately by re-rendering their original works. Large-scale uptake of AI models will significantly impact fields such as advertising, journalism, entertainment, etc by disrupting their market. Managing this requires a push for Ethical AI regulations and the protection of original content creators.

Conclusion: Charting a Balanced Path

The socio-cultural and economic fabric of the Indian subcontinent is not only distinct from the rest of the world but has cross-cutting internal diversities, too. Its digital landscape stands at a crossroads as rapid global technological advancements present increasing opportunities and challenges. In light of growing incidents of misinformation on social media platforms, it is also crucial that regulators consider framing rules that encourage and mandate content verification mechanisms for online platforms, incentivizing them to adopt advanced AI-driven fact-checking tools and other relevant measures. Additionally, establishing public-private partnerships to monitor misinformation trends is crucial to rapidly debunking viral falsehoods. However ethical concerns and user privacy should be taken into consideration while taking such steps. Addressing misinformation requires a collaborative approach that balances platform accountability, technological innovation, and the protection of democratic values.

Sources

India at the Paris AI Action Summit: Driving Innovation and Collaboration

February 18, 2025

Introduction

The AI Action Summit is a global forum that brings together world leaders, policymakers, technology experts, and industry representatives to discuss AI governance, ethics, and its role in society. This year, the week-long Paris AI Action Summit officially culminated on the 11th of February, 2025. It brought together experts from the industry, policymakers, and other dignitaries to discuss Artificial Intelligence and its challenges. The event was co-chaired by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron. In line with the summit, the Indian delegation actively engaged in the 2nd India-France AI Policy Roundtable, an official side event of the summit, and the 14th India-France CEOs Forum. These discussions were on diverse sectors including defense, aerospace, technology, etc. among other things.

Prime Minister Modi’s Address

During the AI Action Summit in Paris, Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew attention to the revolutionary effect of AI in politics, the economy, security, and society. Stressing the requirement of international cooperation, he promoted strong frameworks of governance to combat AI-based risks and consequently, build public confidence in new technologies. Needed efforts with respect to cybersecurity issues such as deepfakes and disinformation were also acknowledged.

Democratising AI, and sharing its benefits, particularly with the Global South not only aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also affirmed India’s resolve towards sharing expertise and best practices. India’s remarkable feat of creating a Digital Public Infrastructure, that caters to a population of 1.4 billion through open and accessible technology was highlighted as well.

Among the key announcements, India revealed its plans to create its own Large Language Model (LLM) that reflects the country's linguistic diversity, strengthening its AI aspirations. Further, India will be hosting the next AI Action Summit, reaffirming its position in international AI leadership. The Prime Minister also welcomed France's initiatives, such as the launch of the "AI Foundation" and the "Council for Sustainable AI", initiated by President Emmanuel Macron. He emphasized the necessity to extend the Global Partnership for AI and to get it more representative and inclusive so that Global South voices are actually incorporated into AI innovation and governance.

Other Perspectives

Though there were 58 countries that signed the international agreement on a more open, inclusive, sustainable, and ethical approach to AI development (including India, France, and China), the UK and the US have refused to sign the international agreement at the AI Summit stating their issues with global governance and national security. While the former raised concerns about the lack of sufficient details regarding the establishment of global AI governance and AI’s effect on national security as their reason, the latter showcased its reservations about the overly wide AI regulations which had the potential to hamper a transformative industry. Meanwhile, the US is also looking forward to ‘Stargate’, its $500 billion AI infrastructure project alongside the companies- OpenAI, Softbank, and Oracle.

CyberPeace Insights

The Summit has garnered greater significance with the backdrop of the release of platforms such as DeepSeek R1, China’s AI assistant system similar to that of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. On its release, it was the top-rated free application on Apple’s app store and sent the technology stocks tumbling. Moreover, investors world over appreciated the creation of the model which was made roughly in about $5 million while other AI companies spent more in comparison (keeping in mind the restrictions caused by the chip export controls in China). This breakthrough challenges the conventional notion that massive funding is a prerequisite for innovation, offering hope for India’s burgeoning AI ecosystem. With the IndiaAI mission and fewer geopolitical restrictions, India stands at a pivotal moment to drive responsible AI advancements.

References:

‍

Unveiling Digital Insights: Navigating the World of Digital Forensics

April 22, 2024

Introduction:

Digital Forensics, as the term goes, “It is the process of collecting, preserving, identifying, analyzing, and presenting digital evidence in a way that the evidence is legally admitted.”

It is like a detective work in the digital realm, where investigators use various specific methods to find deleted files and to reveal destroyed messages.

The reason why Digital Forensics is an important field is because with the advancement of technology and the use of digital devices, the role of Digital Forensics in preserving the evidence and protecting our data from cybercrime is becoming more and more crucial.

Digital Forensics is used in various situations such as:

Criminal Investigations: Digital Forensics enables investigators to trace back cyber threat actors and further identify victims of the crime to gather evidence needed to punish criminals.

Legal issues: Digital Forensics might aid in legal matters involving intellectual property infringement and data breaches etc.

Types of Digital Data in Digital Forensics:

1.Persistent (Non-volatile) Data :-

This type of Data Remains Intact When The Computer Is Turned Off.
ex. Hard-disk, Flash-drives

2. Volatile Data :-

These types of Data Would Be Lost When The Computer Is Turned Off.
ex. Temp. Files, Unsaved OpenFiles, etc.

The Digital Forensics Process

The process is as follows

Evidence Acquisition: This process involves making an exact copy (forensic image) of the storage devices such as hard drives, SSD or mobile devices. The goal is to preserve the original data without changing it.

Data Recovery: After acquiring the forensic image, the analysts use tools to recover deleted, hidden or the encrypted data inside the device .

Timeline Analysis: Analysts use timestamp information from files, and system logs to reconstruct the timeline of activities on a device. This helps in understanding how an incident spanned out and who was involved in it.

Malware Analysis: In cases involving security breaches, analysts analyze malware samples to understand their behavior, impact, and origins. various reverse engineering techniques are used to analyze the malicious code.

Types of tools:

Faraday Bags: Faraday bags are generally the first step in digital evidence capture. These bags are generally made of conductive materials, which are used to shield our electronic devices from external waves such as WiFi, Bluetooth, and mobile cellular signals, which in turn protects the digital evidence from external tampering.

Data recovery : These types of software are generally used for the recovery of deleted files and their associated data. Ex. Magnet Forensics, Access data, X-Ways

Disk imaging and analysis :These types of softwares are Generally used to replicate the data storage devices and then perform further analysis on it ex. FTKImager, Autopsy, and, Sleuth Kit

File carving tools: They are generally used to extract information from the embedded files in the image made. Ex.Foremost, Binwalk, Scalpel

Some common tools:

EnCase: It is a tool for acquiring, analyzing, and reporting digital evidence.

Autopsy: It is an open-source platform generally used for analyzing hard drives and smartphones.

Volatility: It is a framework used generally for memory forensics to analyze volatile memory dumps and extract info.

Sleuth Kit: It is a package of CLI tools for investigating disk images and its associated file systems.

Cellebrite UFED: It is a tool generally used for mobile forensics.

Challenges in the Field:

Encryption: Encryption plays a major challenge as the encrypted data requires specialized techniques and tools for decryption.

Anti-Forensic Techniques: Anti-Forensics techniques play a major challenge as the criminals often use anti-forensic methods to cover their tracks, making it challenging to get the digital evidence.

Data Volume and Complexity: The large volume of digital data and the diversity of various devices create challenges in evidence collection and analysis.

The Future of Digital Forensics: A Perspective

‍With the growth of technology and the vast presence of digital data, the challenges and opportunities in Digital Forensics keep on updating themselves. Due to the onset of new technology and the ever growing necessity of cloud storage, mobile devices, and the IoT (Internet of Things), investigators will have to develop new strategies and should be ready to adapt and learn from the new shaping of the tech world.

Conclusion:

‍Digital Forensics is an essential field in the recent era for ensuring fairness in the digital era. By collecting, inspecting, and analyzing the digital data, the Digital Forensics investigators can arrive lawfully at the prosecution of criminals and the settlement of civil disputes. Nowadays with technology on one hand progressing continuously, the discipline of Digital Forensics will certainly become even more pivotal in the case of investigations in the years to come.

Fact-Checkers vs. The Crowd: The Future of Misinformation Control on Social Media

Introduction

How the Models Work

CyberPeace Insights

Conclusion

References

Related Blogs

Introduction

Key Concerns Highlighted by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw

Cyberpeace Insights

Conclusion: Charting a Balanced Path

Sources

Introduction

Prime Minister Modi’s Address

Other Perspectives

CyberPeace Insights

References:

Introduction:

Digital Forensics is used in various situations such as:

Types of Digital Data in Digital Forensics:

The Digital Forensics Process

Types of tools:

Some common tools:

Challenges in the Field:

The Future of Digital Forensics: A Perspective

Conclusion:

Become a part of our vision to make the digital world safe for all!

Awareness

Engagement

Play your part for CyberPeace