Community Moderation and the New Epistemology of Fact Checking on Social Media

Social media platforms have traditionally relied on internal moderation teams and partnerships with independent fact-checking organizations to identify and flag misleading content. Recently, however, platforms including X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have shifted towards community-driven content moderation by launching their own versions of crowd-sourced fact-checking -- Community Notes. If effectively scaled and governed, such crowd-checking initiatives have the potential to combat misinformation with increased scale and speed as successfully as community-driven efforts once did with spam. Nevertheless, general content moderation, especially for misinformation, is inherently more complex. Public perceptions of truth are often shaped by personal biases, political leanings, and cultural contexts, complicating consensus on what constitutes misleading content. This suggests that community efforts, while valuable, cannot replace the indispensable role of professional fact-checkers. Here we systemically examine the current approaches to misinformation detection across major platforms, explore the emerging role of community-driven moderation, and critically evaluate both the promises and challenges of crowd-checking at scale.

Factuality Challenges in the Era of Large Language Models

The emergence of tools based on Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Bing Chat, and Google's Bard, has garnered immense public attention. These incredibly useful, natural-sounding tools mark significant advances in natural language generation, yet they exhibit a propensity to generate false, erroneous, or misleading content -- commonly referred to as "hallucinations." Moreover, LLMs can be exploited for malicious applications, such as generating false but credible-sounding content and profiles at scale. This poses a significant challenge to society in terms of the potential deception of users and the increasing dissemination of inaccurate information. In light of these risks, we explore the kinds of technological innovations, regulatory reforms, and AI literacy initiatives needed from fact-checkers, news organizations, and the broader research and policy communities. By identifying the risks, the imminent threats, and some viable solutions, we seek to shed light on navigating various aspects of veracity in the era of generative AI.

Automated Fact-Checking for Assisting Human Fact-Checkers

The reporting and analysis of current events around the globe has expanded from professional, editor-lead journalism all the way to citizen journalism. Politicians and other key players enjoy direct access to their audiences through social media, bypassing the filters of official cables or traditional media. However, the multiple advantages of free speech and direct communication are dimmed by the misuse of the media to spread inaccurate or misleading claims. These phenomena have led to the modern incarnation of the fact-checker -- a professional whose main aim is to examine claims using available evidence to assess their veracity. As in other text forensics tasks, the amount of information available makes the work of the fact-checker more difficult. With this in mind, starting from the perspective of the professional fact-checker, we survey the available intelligent technologies that can support the human expert in the different steps of her fact-checking endeavor. These include identifying claims worth fact-checking; detecting relevant previously fact-checked claims; retrieving relevant evidence to fact-check a claim; and actually verifying a claim. In each case, we pay attention to the challenges in future work and the potential impact on real-world fact-checking.