On Tuesday, the Supreme Court held oral arguments for a case that could substantially alter the internet. While the case was specifically focused on who should be held liable for automatic recommendations, the justices will ultimately be deciding how platforms manage content moderation and misinformation.
While there are a lot of unanswered questions in content moderation, a paper we just published is one of the few rigorous studies of fact-checking that could settle some of them. It offers two striking insights.
First, we find that crowdsourcing fact-checks, much like Twitter’s Birdwatch program, are incredibly effective. Overall, it does a better job than just relying on the platform to police content.
