Revisiting the Effectiveness of Fact-Checking: A Discussion

Fact-Checking Remains Vital Tool Despite Growing Skepticism, Experts Assert

The effectiveness of fact-checking has come under scrutiny recently, with some prominent voices declaring the practice ineffective at a Northwestern University conference on disinformation. This growing skepticism has alarmed many information integrity advocates who see such claims as undermining a critical tool in the fight against misinformation.

Critics argue that fact-checking cannot scale sufficiently online and that major platforms lack genuine commitment to the process. However, specialists in the field contend these assertions misunderstand the fundamental purpose of fact-checking and set unrealistic expectations for what it can achieve.

“Fact-checking isn’t designed to eliminate all false information — that’s an impossible standard,” notes one industry expert. “If your expectation is that fact-checking will punish liars or change election outcomes, you’re setting it up to fail no matter how effective it actually is.”

Instead, fact-checking serves two primary functions: providing accurate information to users when they need it and slowing the viral spread of falsehoods on social media. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that debunking efforts and media literacy reminders effectively help consumers stay better informed.

Evidence suggests these approaches have worked at significant scale. For years, Meta implemented a system that distributed fact checks to users encountering false content across millions of interactions. The company’s algorithms also attached fact-checking notices to similar claims automatically. Rather than censoring content outright, this method focused on interrupting the viral sharing cycle.

Recent research supports the effectiveness of this approach. When users saw fact checks attached to content they were considering sharing, sharing rates measurably declined. Some users even returned to delete posts they had already published after seeing fact-checking information. While false claims continued to circulate, they spread at significantly reduced rates compared to unmoderated content.

This program continues today in many markets globally, with one notable exception—the United States.

A key challenge facing fact-checking initiatives is their lack of transparency. Since much of this work occurs behind the scenes through algorithmic interventions, the public remains largely unaware of its scope and impact. When people still encounter false information online, they may incorrectly conclude that fact-checking has failed entirely, without recognizing the substantial reduction in viral spread—often by 20-40% in specific instances.

“Today, these programs are being dismantled, not because they didn’t work, but because powerful actors decided they didn’t want them to work,” one industry observer noted.

Critics of fact-checking often conflate different issues: the need for more effective distribution, the profit incentives driving misinformation, or the reality that fact-checking alone cannot solve all information integrity problems. These implementation challenges and questions of political will are distinct from the fundamental efficacy of correcting false information.

This distinction matters because declaring fact-checking ineffective carries significant consequences. It may justify defunding these efforts, encourage platforms to abandon their responsibility, and ultimately increase public feelings of powerlessness in navigating today’s complex information landscape.

Fact-checking represents one essential component of a broader strategy to create an information environment where high-quality information is readily accessible, enabling citizens to make informed decisions. While acknowledging the genuine challenges facing fact-checking efforts is necessary, prematurely declaring defeat serves those who benefit from a weakened information ecosystem.

As one advocate put it, “I’m not surprised that people who profit from weakening content moderation say fact-checking doesn’t work. But when it comes from people who actually care about truth and information integrity, it’s time to lovingly correct these friends and tell them why they’re wrong.”