A few months ago, I wrote a blog about why I left X. Too many changes were being made by Elon Musk that did not align with my values. And one of these reasons was the spread of misinformation, which stems back to the loss of expert fact checkers across the site. We’re currently seeing the same happen on Meta (who own Facebook and Instagram) as reported on 7th January.
Ofcom reported that in 2024, 52% of UK adults used social media for news, and 83% of 16-24 year olds used social media to digest the news. These figures show an alarming switch from traditional news outlets, into a system where we are aware misinformation can carry perceived dangers.
With algorithms that constantly pump out similar posts that align with what users have engaged with, it is concerning that people across the UK could be misinformed with no support from the social platforms; and all seemingly to keep the president-elect of the U.S. happy. But what about the rest of the world who care about fact-checking?
Below, I explore the argument.
“When the public’s trust in information is shaken, it takes time and effort to rebuild confidence”
rachel coles
Empowerment or Chaos?
At first glance, the ability for users to fact-check and flag misinformation appears as a powerful tool for enhancing the quality of information online. It democratises the process of verifying facts, allowing the collective wisdom of the crowd to challenge misinformation.
However, this empowerment comes with the risk of creating informational chaos across the world. With an increase in AI tools that are not yet regulated in some countries (The U.S. for example), and social platforms that stretch globally, by placing this in the hands of the user, we do not know what information one person is receiving against another.
When I think about fact-checking with my journalistic background, I know it requires expertise, context, and objectivity, qualities that are not always present in the general user base. We were taught this in year 1 of our degree!
Without rigorous standards, user-driven fact-checking could devolve into a battle of opinions rather than an objective search for truth. This could further erode trust in legitimate information, as users may begin to question the validity of all content, leading to skepticism towards credible sources.
The Risk of Echo Chambers
Social media platforms are already criticised for creating echo chambers, where users are exposed predominantly to viewpoints that reinforce their beliefs. User-driven fact-checking could, and I believe will, exacerbate this problem.
When individuals fact-check content, their biases may influence their assessments, reinforcing their own viewpoints while dismissing opposing perspectives as misinformation.
This selective validation could deepen societal divides, making it even harder to reach consensus on what actually constitutes truth. If every group can fact-check in ways that serve their narratives, the very concept of a shared reality becomes fragmented.
“Without rigorous standards, user-driven fact-checking could devolve into a battle of opinions rather than an objective search for truth”
Rachel Coles
Weaponisation of Fact-Checking
Another danger is the potential weaponisation of fact-checking. Users with malicious intent could abuse these tools to suppress opposing voices by flagging truthful content as false, leading to censorship and the stifling of healthy discourse. This kind of weaponisation undermines the original goal of fact-checking (to promote accurate information) and instead uses it as a tool for ideological battles.
This was the case of Facebook’s fact-checking of political ads in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Some users and groups accused the platform of bias, claiming that fact-checks disproportionately targeted content from specific political viewpoints, leading to widespread criticism and debates about the neutrality of fact-checking mechanisms. And we all know what happened at the end of that election…
Trust and Accountability
When I take it back to traditional journalism, fact-checking is the domain of professionals who are trained to follow ethical guidelines and methodologies. By contrast, user-driven fact-checking lacks accountability structures. Who ensures that user fact-checkers adhere to impartial standards? Without oversight, the system is vulnerable to manipulation and mistakes, which could result in the dissemination of even more misinformation rather than less. I see an argument being “free speech”, but this isn’t the case if it is just not the truth.
Consider the instance where a viral video on Instagram was falsely fact-checked as “misleading” due to a misunderstanding of its context. The original post, which aimed to raise awareness about climate change, was flagged and subsequently suppressed, reducing its reach. The error was later corrected, but the damage had already been done, highlighting the risks of hasty or uninformed fact-checking.
“Users with malicious intent could abuse these (fact-checking) tools to suppress opposing voices”
rachel coles
The Fallout of Incorrect Fact-Checks
Incorrect fact-checking can have serious consequences. In August 2024, widespread anti-immigration riots in the UK were significantly fueled by false viral claims on social media, particularly X (Why I deleted X during the UK riots). These misleading narratives incited real-life harm, demonstrating the direct impact of online misinformation on public order.
This incident and others, underscore the need for accuracy and responsibility in fact-checking processes. When the public’s trust in information is shaken, it takes time and effort to rebuild confidence in the platforms and their mechanisms.
I’m Calling for Balance
Whilst the intention behind user-driven fact-checking is understandable, the dangers it presents cannot be ignored. Social media platforms must strike a balance between empowering users and maintaining the integrity of information. This could involve incorporating hybrid models that combine user input with professional fact-checkers or AI-driven verification tools to ensure accuracy and impartiality.
The path to curbing misinformation is complex, requiring thoughtful design and oversight. As we navigate the changes being made by global social giants, the goal should remain clear: we must foster a digital environment where truth prevails and user contributions enhance the information ecosystem.
Ultimately, user-driven fact-checking should complement and not replace professional efforts. By ensuring robust checks and balances, we can harness the benefits of crowd-sourced verification whilst minimising the risks.
About the Author
Rachel Coles is the Founder and Director of Conv3rt Marketing, where she combines her expertise in journalism, forensic linguistics and innovative strategy to partner with companies for all their marketing needs.
With a passion for creative problem-solving and a background rich in transferable skills, Rachel leads her team with vision and authenticity. Outside of work, she’s a proud mum, outdoor enthusiast and a gym lover (but still on an eternal quest to find a decent gluten-free doughnut).
