Last week, Meta announced plans to cut its US-based fact-checkers, just as wildfires raged in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, fact-checkers were busy debunking conspiracy theories about the fires. They faced a tough challenge: misinformation spread fast, and influential figures were pushing false claims. Some said the fires were started by the government, others blamed Democrats or climate policies. Without professional fact-checkers, how will Meta tackle these rumors?

A former CNN journalist, now with Lead Stories, compared cutting fact-checkers to disbanding a fire department. Lead Stories worked to correct false claims, like one about looting during the fires. Other fact-checkers, like PolitiFact, debunked false posts too. But some conspiracy theories, like ones blaming the government for the fires, went unchecked.

Meta plans to replace professional fact-checkers with a crowd-sourced system called Community Notes. This system relies on users to add notes to posts, but it doesn't always catch everything. Some false claims, like one about a globalist plot, were not marked as such. Critics argue that professional fact-checkers are better suited to handle complex conspiracies.

Meta's Fact-Checkers vs. Conspiracy Theories: A Battle in Real-Time

Actions