Meta is expanding its shift away from professional fact-checking. The tech giant announced it's trialling it's crowdsourced "Community Notes" system across 16 countries in Latin America. Meta says the system will only fully roll out once it is confident it works, but critics warn that with misinformation, manipulated images and AI-generated content spreading rapidly, crowdsourced checks may come too late to prevent false claims from reaching millions. Vedika Bahl explains the risks.
The list covers Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
The move is part of Meta’s wider effort to replace its network of professional fact-checking partners with a system that puts more responsibility for identifying misleading content in the hands of its users.
The company began recruiting contributors in the region on Wednesday. But during the initial testing phase, Community Notes will not be visible to the wider public.
Meta has not given a timeline for a full rollout, saying it will expand the system once it is confident it works effectively.
So, what are Community Notes?
It's inspired by the model first introduced by Elon Musk on X, formerly Twitter.
Instead of professional fact-checkers reviewing posts and adding corrections, Community Notes allows participating users to suggest notes that provide additional context or challenge potentially misleading information.
Other contributors then rate those notes. They are designed to appear only when there is broad agreement among contributors with different viewpoints.
Meta says the approach is intended to provide context without allowing a small group of professional fact-checkers to decide which posts should be flagged or what a correction should say.
Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of Meta’s US professional fact-checking programme in January 2025, replacing it with Community Notes. The decision came just days before Donald Trump returned to the White House and was presented by Zuckerberg as a move towards greater free speech.
But can Community Notes reallu replace professional fact-checking?
The sheer volume of false claims and misleading images posted every day make this difficult for Community Notes to be enough. There are millions or billions of posts per day and there’s nowhere near enough contributors to review all this content.
Community Notes also take time to contribute, which is less likely from day-to-day users rather than professional fact-checkers. Notes rely on users volunteering their time to identify problematic content, write corrections and then assess notes submitted by others, and corrections often only appear after misleading content has already been widely viewed and shared.
The International Fact-Checking Network has criticised Meta’s decision, arguing that Community Notes alone cannot do enough to tackle harmful misinformation at the scale of Meta’s platforms.
The timing of the Latin American rollout has also raised concerns.
The region has experienced a string of closely contested elections in recent years, while politicians have increasingly relied on social media to reach voters. Some have also been accused of deploying coordinated disinformation networks to create the appearance of support.
Meta’s own Oversight Board, the semi-independent body that reviews some of the company’s content-moderation decisions, has urged Meta not to treat Community Notes as a direct replacement for professional fact-checking.
