Plus, X’s Community Notes and YouTube’s experiment Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
It’s easier to find misinformation on X… Latest research on the effectiveness of fact-checker warning labels… Adobe surveys consumers on misinformation… Winners of the “Grant Writing for Journalists” contest
It’s easy to find misinformation on social media. It’s even easier on X.
Computer monitors and a laptop display the sign-in page for X, formerly known as Twitter, on July 24, 2023, in Belgrade, Serbia. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic, File)

Many changes have come to X, the platform once known as Twitter, since billionaire Elon Musk completed his acquisition of the company almost two years ago.

One of the largest has been the rise in misinformation. A platform that used to downgrade hoaxes, conspiracy theories and false claims has become one where even the boss now spreads the stuff. That change didn’t happen immediately, but the shift of X from a useful information source to a locus of misinformation has alarmed fact-checkers worldwide.

“It used to take work to find disinformation on Twitter. You had to set up dashboards and Boolean searches,” said Maarten Schenk, co-founder and chief technology officer of Lead Stories. “Nowadays, you just check the trending topics. You can also see what Elon Musk retweets or amplifies.”

The relationship between large technology companies and professional fact-checkers has always been contentious ([link removed]) , with fact-checkers accusing the platforms of not doing enough to combat the spread of misinformation. But at least there is a relationship. Meta — which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — partners with independent fact-checkers ([link removed]) to review and rate posts on its platforms, for example. TikTok operates a similar program ([link removed]) .

X under Elon Musk has shown no interest in doing the same. It does not have a formal relationship with fact-checkers and instead relies on its crowdsourced fact-checking program “Community Notes,” Maldita.es co-founder and CEO Clara Jiménez Cruz said. While experts acknowledge that there are some advantages to the Community Notes system, it also has its flaws, allowing many pieces of mis- and disinformation to go unchecked and viral.

“Even though Twitter has never made huge efforts to tackle misinformation, (there’s) clearly a less prominent effort right now,” Jiménez Cruz said. “It doesn’t only involve misinformation itself, but also hate speech and other forms of manipulative content.”

X did not respond to a request for comment.

The result, fact-checkers say, is a worse experience for users as misleading and hateful posts clutter people’s feeds and disinformation campaigns run rampant. Many worry about the effects of those campaigns, especially during a year when nearly half the world’s population votes in national elections.

“These platforms are contributing, in more ways than one, to how stable societies are or would be in the future,” said FactSpace West Africa director Rabiu Alhassan. “We are talking about very vulnerable, young democracies on the (African) continent with emerging youthful populations that are using these platforms. … They (tech companies) have the responsibility to ensure that their platforms are not used to spread misinformation and disinformation that really has the potential to undermine and destabilize a number of countries.”

** ‘They don’t seem to care’
------------------------------------------------------------

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022 ushered in a number of changes: mass firings, an overhaul of the platform’s verification system, a new name. It also marked a shift in the company’s interactions with fact-checkers.

Prior to Musk, Twitter had relationships with a few news organizations, including The Associated Press and Reuters, said Alex Mahadevan, director of Poynter’s Mediawise. The company worked with fact-checkers as it built Birdwatch, the crowdsourced fact-checking apparatus that was later renamed Community Notes under Musk. When misinformation hit the trending topics page, Twitter would sometimes append fact checks, according to Schenk.

Now, misinformation often goes unchecked. In fact, Musk has emerged as a major spreader of misinformation, amplifying false claims to his 197 million followers. The Center for Countering Digital Hate ([link removed]) found that Musk made 50 false or misleading posts about the U.S. elections between Jan. 1 and July 31, generating nearly 1.2 billion views, and The Washington Post reported ([link removed]) earlier this week that Musk’s online posts have coincided with harassment campaigns towards election administrators.

The format of X Premium, the platform’s subscription service, also incentivizes people to spread misinformation, fact-checkers said. Those who are subscribed can monetize their X page and get paid when people engage with their posts.

“You want more engagement,” Newschecker managing editor Ruby Dhingra said. “That incentivizes people to write things that might not necessarily be true or that might create controversy.”

Musk and X have shown little willingness to engage with fact-checkers. Musk, for example, has called fact-checkers “biased ([link removed]) ” and “liars ([link removed]) .” X has also withdrawn from the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation ([link removed]) , a voluntary initiative whose signatories — which include tech companies like Meta, TikTok and Twitch — commit to countering disinformation.

“Basically, the impression among fact-checkers in Europe is that disinformation is more legitimized now on (X), and they don’t seem to care,” Maldita.es policy officer Marina Sacristán said.

The European Fact-Checking Standards Network published a report ([link removed]) earlier this year examining anti-disinformation measures at 10 online platforms and search engines. In surveying European fact-checkers, they found “not a single one considered that X takes the disinformation problem seriously” and any already-signed contracts Twitter had with fact-checkers prior to Musk never took effect after the change in ownership.

Trying to contact X is often an exercise in futility, fact-checkers said. X has shut down many of its international offices ([link removed]) , leaving fact-checkers with no one to turn to when issues arise. Jiménez Cruz said that Twitter used to have a fairly large office in Spain that served as Maldita’s point of contact with the company. “We don’t have that anymore, and this is something that we see all around the world when we talk with fact-checkers.”

Lead Stories, which operates in multiple languages, recently tried to start an X account for its Ukrainian fact checks, but the account was suspended, Schenk said. Attempts to contact X have been unsuccessful.

“We tried the support forum several times to get it (the suspension) lifted, but they’re not even responding, despite Elon saying any content that is legal should be free speech,” Schenk said. “Well, leadstories_UA is definitely not working, and our content is definitely legal. So I don’t know what the problem is.”

It’s a stark contrast to Twitter’s previous relationship with fact-checkers and journalists. The company used to have a “really strong” curation team, said Mahadevan. Journalists were given blue checks to show that they could be trusted, and it was easy to find high quality news.

“Twitter was a very friendly place for journalists, and I think the quality of information there reflected that,” Mahadevan said. “And now X is a place that’s very hostile to journalists and fact-checkers, and the quality of information reflects that.”


** Community Notes
------------------------------------------------------------

While companies like Meta and TikTok have engaged professional fact-checkers to help counter misinformation on their platforms, X has chosen to outsource its fact-checking to the masses.

Community Notes, X’s fact-checking initiative, allows participants to propose notes to be displayed under misleading posts. Anyone who meets the basic requirements — a six-month old account with a verified phone number and no X rules violations — can join. Users write and vote on notes, and if a note gathers enough votes from people representing different points of view, it will be made public.

“What this means in practice is that conservatives and liberals have to agree that a fact check is appended to a tweet before it goes public and before anyone can see it,” Mahadevan said. “And because everything is essentially downstream from politics now, that is something that is very, very hard to do.”
Read more about how the Community Notes program works in Angela Fu’s full article here ([link removed]) .


Research Watch

A screenshot of a fact-checker’s warning label on an Instagram post containing false information.

** Fact-checker warning labels work
------------------------------------------------------------

New research on human behavior finds, again, that fact-checking works.
The peer-reviewed study, by MIT scholars Cameron Martel and David G. Rand, looked at the effectiveness of fact-checker warning labels, even for people who distrust fact-checkers. After conducting 21 experiments with more than 14,000 participants in the United States, the researchers found that warning labels reduced belief in misinformation by 27.6% and sharing by 24.7% on average.

Among users with low trust in fact-checkers, belief in false news dropped by 12.9%, and sharing by 16.7%. The researchers found no evidence of a backfire effect, meaning that warning labels did not strengthen belief in misinformation.
Read the 14-page report, published on Sept. 2, in Nature Human Behavior ([link removed]) .
U.S. consumers want misinformation safeguards, Adobe study reveals
A new Adobe survey finds that consumers are increasingly concerned about misinformation in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election in November and want stronger safeguards.
Nearly half of the 2,000 respondents reported being misled or believing in election-related misinformation in the last three months. The survey found that 94% of respondents are concerned about the impact of false information on the election.
Below are three highlights:
* 87% of respondents said the rise of AI has made it difficult to separate fact from fiction online.
* 89% of respondents believe social media companies should do more to reduce misinformation on their platforms.
* 95% of respondents want attribution labels attached to elections-related content to help them fact-check the content themselves.

The full Adobe release, published on Sept. 18, ishere ([link removed]) .
Other News

When Fact-Checks Backfire: New research shows their promise—and limits ([link removed]) . The Atlantic (podcast). New research continues to bury the “backfire effect.” Fact-checking does work — but it’s better to be polite about it.
Big tech is painting itself as journalism’s savior. We should tread carefully ([link removed]) . The Conversation. “News organizations should prioritize building direct relationships with their audience to reduce reliance on third-party platforms. They should also stay informed about evolving regulations, and actively participate in policy discussions shaping the future of the news-tech relationship.”
This article was written by Mathias-Felipe de-Lima-Santos, a lecturer at Macquarie University in Australia, and an IFCN assessor.
Elon Musk’s misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election officials ([link removed]) . The Washington Post: “Experts say Musk is uniquely dangerous as a purveyor of misinformation because his digital following stretches well beyond the political realm and into the technology and investment sectors, where his business achievements have earned him credibility.”

Most “Fake News” Legislation Risks Doing More Harm Than Good Amid a Record Number of Elections in 2024 ([link removed]) , Center for News, Technology and Innovation. Updated Sept. 3, 2024
How Disinformation Research Came Under Fire ([link removed]) , Mother Jones, November/December 2024 issue.
Five winners selected in “Grant Writing for Journalists” contest

Five winners have been selected to receive $100 for completing the self-directed online course, “Grant Writing for Journalists ([link removed]) .”
Developed by the staff of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), working with subject matter experts from the Center for Sustainable Media, a Budapest-based media consulting firm, this free, asynchronous course guides learners through the fundamentals of grant writing, including developing strategic goals, composing narrative elements, designing a monitoring and evaluation plan, and creating a budget. Learners who completed all four course modules before Aug. 31 were automatically entered to win $100.
These randomly selected participants are: Farhat Khedr of Fareq, a Syrian fact-checking platform; Kirsten Stromsodt of Forum Communications in North Dakota, USA; Winston Mwale of Malawi, a journalist and media trainer with AfricaBrief; Alexis Ababio of Ghana; and Emmanuel Dushimimana Ngabo, a Rwandan journalist with Community Radio Isangano.
“I found the Grant Writing for Journalists course to be timely and immensely important,” said Mwale. “The course provided essential skills for journalists seeking to secure funding for impactful stories. It has equipped me with the knowledge to better support our mission of delivering in-depth reporting on African issues.”
While contest winners have been selected, the course remains open for enrollment. Enroll in the course here ([link removed]) .
Have ideas or suggestions for the next issue of Factually? Email us at [email protected].
Angie Drobnic Holan
Director, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Enock Nyariki
Community and Impact Manager, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Alanna Dvorak
International Training Manager, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2024
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .