Meta begins its international expansion of Community Notes. The company said it was beginning to test crowdsourced fact-checking in 16 Latin American countries, more than a year after rolling out the program in the United States and ending its partnership with U.S.-based fact-checking organizations.
The company says it plans to take a similar approach with its first tests in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The platform is starting to onboard contributors who, if approved, will be able to write notes adding “additional context” to posts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads. During the testing phase, contributor ratings will not be shown to users and “there will be no changes to third-party fact-checking,” Meta says in a blog post originally published in Spanish.
But the company goes on to suggest that it intends for Community Notes to eventually replace existing fact-checking schemes in these countries. “When we are sure that the product works well and can be successful, we will consider launching it fully – starting with the publication of community notes and transitioning our third-party fact-checking program,” Meta writes, according to a translation provided by the company.
Unsurprisingly, Meta’s decision to end fact-checking in much of Latin America alarmed fact-checking organizations. In a statement released by Poynter, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) said it was “deeply concerned” by the news. “The Community Notes program alone is simply not adequate when it comes to reducing the impact of harmful falsehoods on its platforms,” the group wrote.
The Oversight Board, which had previously warned Meta that Community Notes’ expansion outside the United States would carry “significant” risks, also seemed troubled. “We urge Meta not to view community ratings as a direct replacement for fact-checking, and to use whatever tools best address the challenge of misinformation on its platforms in ways that protect free speech and address potential harm,” the board said in a statement.
Earlier this year, the group released a 15,000-word policy advisory opinion on how Meta should handle Community Notes’ international expansion. In it, the Oversight Board repeatedly emphasized that Community Notes should not replace traditional fact-checking. “One does not need to replace the other, they can coexist,” co-chairman of the board Paolo Carozza told Woozad at the time. “And in some situations there are very important reasons for them to coexist.”
In its guidance, the board warned against disseminating community notes in countries experiencing “high polarization,” “protracted conflict,” and those with a history of organized disinformation networks. Meta does not heed this advice, according to the IFCN.
“Meta is testing its community ratings in select countries that face precisely one or more of these circumstances. Nicaragua, for example, has abolished elections and actively practices arbitrary detention of political dissidents. Disinformation networks have been well documented in El Salvador and Ecuador. And Venezuela is in a prolonged state of instability.”
When reached for comment, Meta did not respond directly to the criticism. A spokesperson said there were “no changes to our third-party fact-checking program at this time.” The company said Community Notes was a success in the United States, where it has 1.4 million contributors.
Others have raised questions about the effectiveness of Meta’s program compared to X. The post Indicator found that only 3% of Instagram posts debunked by the AFPSince last April, the American office of the European Union had also received a community note. This suggests that Meta’s crowdsourced approach is missing a significant number of social media posts that traditional fact-checkers believe are worth addressing.
