Fact-checking has emerged as one of the most prominent policy tools to combat the spread of misinformation, but critics have argued that it infringes upon freedom of expression and that it has no meaningful impact on the circulation of misinformation. This column provides evidence from the field that fact-checking significantly reduces engagement with posts on Facebook rated as false and also decreases users' subsequent activity. The findings suggest that the impact of fact-checking primarily results not from Facebook’s actions to hide or demote content, but rather from users’ behavioural responses, challenging the idea that it suppresses free speech.

TLDR: It reduces the virality of misinformation by ~8% and increases article deletion.

    • FactChecker@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      185·
      5 months ago

      What in the whatabotism is this? There are scholars and posters that can focus on specific regions. I have deep knowledge about Sahel, Syria, and Ukraine, and I have posted credible articles about said regions and INDOPAC. I can talk about misinformation by a number of actors surrounding the Gaza war but I am not as proficient in the topic as some of my acquaintances are and in general I don’t like to believe popular vote based forums are conducive to any kind of appropriate discussion on the topic. I don’t understand the anti-scientific combativeness in your attitude, do all scientists have to cover all topics? I can also see your comment history but I think this is not the place for such a discussion. I do believe in highlighting Africa as a region that is deeply ignored despite JNIM and ISWAP causing more that 10x the deaths of all other terrorism in the world combined, Sudan war, etc.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
          102·
          5 months ago

          Your account is concerning in that you present yourself as a fact checker, yet we have no idea what your motives are.

          It’s funny you should bring that up deceptichum…

          Seriously, could your usernames possibly be more on the nose? This feels like a setup.

          I feel like I should definitely ignore both of your posts and let the article speak for itself.

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
              52·
              5 months ago

              Oh I caught that, totally. But that doesn’t change what it literally says… That shits funny!

              “Believe me, those people shouldn’t be trusted!” -Ronald McLiar

    • Gsus4@mander.xyzEnglish
      11·
      5 months ago

      If there’s going to be fact checkers, they themselves need to be routinely checked and their biases listed.

      Isn’t this what editors used to do?