REVIEW 2 cited by
Community-based fact-checking reduces the spread of misleading posts on social media
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Community-based fact-checking is a promising approach to verify social media content and correct misleading posts at scale. Yet, causal evidence regarding its effectiveness in reducing the spread of misinformation on social media is missing. Here, we performed a large-scale empirical study to analyze whether community notes reduce the spread of misleading posts on X. Using a Difference-in-Differences design and repost time series data for N=237,677 (community fact-checked) cascades that had been reposted more than 431 million times, we found that exposing users to community notes reduced the spread of misleading posts by, on average, 62.0%. Furthermore, community notes increased the odds that users delete their misleading posts by 103.4%. However, our findings also suggest that community notes might be too slow to intervene in the early (and most viral) stage of the diffusion. Our work offers important implications to enhance the effectiveness of community-based fact-checking approaches on social media.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Beyond the Crowd: LLM-Augmented Community Notes for Governing Health Misinformation
CrowdNotes+ combines LLM note augmentation and automation with a three-stage evaluation to outperform human contributors on correctness, helpfulness, and evidence utility for health misinformation notes.
-
Commenotes: Synthesizing Organic Comments to Support Community-Based Fact-Checking
A filtering plus LLM synthesis pipeline turns early user comments into community-note-style fact-checks; the best model beats human notes in 70.1% of pairwise user ratings.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.