Fact-checking has emerged as one of the most prominent policy tools to combat the spread of misinformation, but critics have argued that it infringes upon freedom of expression and that it has no meaningful impact on the circulation of misinformation. This column provides evidence from the field that fact-checking significantly reduces engagement with posts on Facebook rated as false and also decreases users' subsequent activity. The findings suggest that the impact of fact-checking primarily results not from Facebook’s actions to hide or demote content, but rather from users’ behavioural responses, challenging the idea that it suppresses free speech.

TLDR: It reduces the virality of misinformation by ~8% and increases article deletion.

  • BossDj@piefed.socialEnglish
    31·
    10 days ago

    I give less shits every day about the “freedom” of allowing harm to others.

    And Zuck’s business RUNS on engagement. If fact check leads to less engagement as the article says, they are disincentivized of any reason to go forward with it. The danger of abusing “fact check” is very real. We pass a fact check law, and suddenly the US gives a billion to an Elon Musk startup “Fax Chex XxX” or whatever and it just labels stuff as woke and deletes anyone who says Trump is on the Epstein list.

      • Meron35@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        10 days ago

        Are shits countable? Does it depend on if they’re metaphorical or physical? 🤔

      • gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        4·
        10 days ago

        Used in a sentence:

        Fewer and fewer people cared for Prescriptivism, as they are aware that it’s an outdated model of linguistics and that it’s seen as a waste of everyone’s time.

        Language is living and breathing, not frozen in amber