According to engadget, Meta is preparing to expand its Community Notes fact-checking system to more countries after nearly a year of US-only testing. The company has specifically asked its Oversight Board to weigh in on which countries should potentially be excluded from the international rollout. Notably, Meta isn’t seeking advice on whether to replace traditional fact-checkers but wants guidance on country-specific challenges. So far, the feature has struggled to gain traction – in September, the company revealed that only 6% of over 15,000 submitted notes had actually been published. The system currently allows approved users to author notes while anyone can rate them across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.
Meta’s Strategic Ask
Here’s the thing – Meta’s request to the Oversight Board is actually pretty clever. They’re not asking “should we do this?” but rather “how should we do this?” By focusing the discussion on which countries to exclude rather than whether the system works, they’re essentially treating international expansion as a foregone conclusion. The company specifically told the board to avoid examining “general product design or the operation of the Community Notes algorithm” – which feels like they’re trying to sidestep the bigger questions about whether crowdsourced fact-checking actually works at scale.
The Traction Problem
That 6% publication rate is pretty telling, isn’t it? When you compare Meta’s Community Notes to what’s happening on X’s version, there’s clearly a gap in adoption and effectiveness. Maybe it’s because Meta’s user base is different, or perhaps the approval process is too restrictive. But when only 900 out of 15,000 notes make it through, you have to wonder if the system is working as intended. Basically, they’re expanding a feature that hasn’t really caught fire in its initial market.
The International Minefield
The Oversight Board is considering some crucial factors that Meta probably should have thought about earlier. Countries with “low levels of freedom of expression” or without a free press? Places with “low levels of digital literacy”? These aren’t minor concerns – they’re fundamental to whether crowdsourced fact-checking can function at all. In authoritarian regimes, Community Notes could become a tool for government propaganda rather than truth-seeking. And in areas with low digital literacy, well-intentioned users might accidentally amplify misinformation instead of correcting it.
What’s Really at Stake Here
Look, the big question is whether Meta is genuinely seeking guidance or just looking for cover. The company isn’t obligated to follow the Oversight Board’s recommendations, though they have in the past – like when they rolled back COVID-19 misinformation rules. But this feels different. They’re expanding a system that’s already showing limited success while cutting ties with professional fact-checkers. If this goes wrong in certain countries, it could do real harm. And honestly, after the past few years of content moderation struggles, does Meta really need another controversy?
