The network, which brings together 46 Latin American fact-checkers, agrees that community notes are insufficient in contexts of widespread disinformation.
Meta’s Content Advisory Board (Oversight Board) released its opinion last week on the potential expansion of the Community Notes program outside the United States. In it, the Board notes that this program is not sufficient as a primary tool for addressing disinformation and underscores the importance of professional fact-checking. LatamChequea, the latin american network of fact-checkers, values this opinion and agrees that any deployment of these tools on the platform should complement, not replace, independent fact-checks.
The Council also urges Meta not to move forward with this program in particularly sensitive contexts, such as electoral processes, repressive human rights contexts, countries with a history of coordinated disinformation networks, and regions with persistent obstacles to internet access. The opinion was issued in response to a request from Meta regarding the considerations it should take into account when expanding the program to other countries and followed a consultation process in which LatamChequea participated.
Meta’s Community Notes program currently exists only in the United States, where it was announced in January 2025, and is based on the X system. It operates through voluntary contributions from users who add context to posts on the social network. These contributions are published only if they achieve consensus among users who typically differ in their opinions.
The Advisory Board identified some structural limitations of these programs: delays in publishing notes, the small number of notes that are actually published, and their dependence on the reliability of the broader information ecosystem, as shown by the latest available evidence. These limitations are particularly relevant in contexts of high polarization, crisis, or the viral spread of disinformation, where speed, scale, and the quality of sources are critical.
Regarding the role of fact-checkers, the Council noted that research shows that “professional fact-checkers are among the most-cited sources for supporting context, indicating the dependence of community notes on third-party fact-checking”. It adds: “Reducing support for fact-checkers will likely impact community notes, as
contributors may have fewer reliable sources to cite”. In other words, fact-checking is not only still necessary but is a critical infrastructure for the functioning of the system itself, as noted by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN).
Professional fact-checking does not remove content or restrict freedom of expression: it adds verified context, evidence, and professional methodology so that people can make informed decisions. It is a journalistic practice and a form of exercising freedom of expression that provides accuracy, transparency, and local expertise, especially on complex issues or those with a significant public impact.
The Council also warned of the risks the Community Notes system poses to human rights. Among them are its potential use as a tool to deter public participation -by flagging user contributions, which could lead to harassment or retaliation- and its possible co-optation by coordinated disinformation networks. In the words of Meta’s own Advisory Board: “In political
contexts where the civic space is constrained and human rights are at risk, community notes
may discourage dissent, citizen journalism and user-led fact-checking, or minority viewpoints, especially in the absence of transparency about how the system works or meaningful avenues for appeal”.
In Latin America, these risks are even more significant due to the combination of frequent electoral processes, coordinated disinformation networks, unequal access to reliable information, challenges in accessing public information, information deserts, restrictions on civic space in several countries, and high contextual diversity. In these environments, replacing the work of professional fact-checkers with crowdsourcing mechanisms can weaken, rather than strengthen, the integrity of the information ecosystem.
At LatamChequea, we share the view that community-based tools that help improve the quality of information are valuable, provided they are implemented carefully, transparently, and with sensitivity to different contexts. However, this should not lead to the elimination of other tools that have proven effective in mitigating the impacts of disinformation, such as Meta’s independent fact-checking program (Third Party Fact-Checking).
In this regard, we urge Meta to maintain and strengthen its ties with independent fact-checkers and to adopt a hybrid model that combines community-driven content with proven standards of professional verification and rights protection.
LatamChequea’s goal is to share experiences and tools that contribute to improving the quality of public debate and to foster collaborative processes among various organizations in Latin America to increase the impact of fact-checking and the fight against disinformation on our continent.
Leave a Reply