Author: LatamChequea

The Latin American fact-checking network LatamChequea condemns the attacks on Ecuadorian fact-checkers and calls for the protection of independent and transparent fact-checking.

The Latin American fact-checking network, LatamChequea, expresses particular concern over attacks, harassment, and digital violence against fact-checkers from Ecuador Chequea and Lupa Media, members of LatamChequea, amid restrictions on press freedom in Ecuador.

According to the latest 2026 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Ecuador was the second country in the world and the first in Latin America where press freedom declined the most over the past year, ranking 125th out of 180 nations analyzed. Following the 2025 murders of Darwin Baque and Patricio Aguilar, the organization warned in early 2026 of an escalation of death threats against journalists and criticized not only the authorities’ failure to protect the press but also their efforts to restrict it.

In this context, the digital attacks that independent fact-checkers have faced in recent weeks are yet another sign of the climate of harassment evident in Ecuador and various Latin American countries against independent fact-checking organizations, which play a fundamental role in the fight against misinformation and in promoting accountability.

LatamChequea also emphasizes the importance of transparency in independent fact-checking initiatives, particularly regarding their methods, editorial teams, and funding. For years, we have observed in the region the emergence of so-called fact-checking initiatives that do not publish their methodology, exhibit bias in their publications, and lack transparency regarding their editorial teams or funding—a phenomenon also occurring in Ecuador. In some cases, these initiatives are even directly promoted by governments. 

Such projects, which seek to exploit the trust audiences place in fact-checking media, ultimately undermine the work of independent fact-checkers. By appropriating formats, labels, and ratings associated with fact-checking without meeting basic standards of transparency, independence, and methodological rigor, they contribute to degrading the public value of fact-checking and trivializing a fundamental tool for informed democratic debate.

Fact-checking journalism is essential to sustaining the quality of democracies in our region. As a network of fact-checkers, we reiterate that to uphold the human right to information, independent fact-checkers must be able to carry out their work freely.

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.

Fact-checking journalism is essential to uphold democratic quality in times of polarization. When everything seems divided, journalism based on facts helps rebuild a shared foundation for public debate. Fact-checking is more than correcting mistakes: it is about defending people’s right to make decisions based on evidence — not lies.

LatamChequea makes an urgent call to funders, platforms, and governments to defend fact-checking, because it is the right of people to be informed. When that right is eroded, it’s not just journalism at stake, but the very health of our democracies.

Fact-checking organizations in Latin America are facing a perfect storm. The breakdown in U.S. international cooperation affects the sustainability of many projects — a scenario that only benefits those who manufacture disinformation. We call on global funders who care about information integrity to step up. The societies of Latin America, in all their diverse identities and cultures, need independent and sustainable media to mitigate the real harm that disinformation causes to civil rights and democratic quality.

Social media platforms must be part of the solution — not the problem. We need more transparency, not less. We urge platforms to provide greater data access and collaborate with those fighting disinformation, and we call on Meta in particular to reverse its decision to end the third-party fact-checking program in the U.S. — a move that leaves millions of Americans further exposed to misinformation and casts a shadow over the rest of the world.

Artificial intelligence companies must assume their responsibility in combating disinformation. It is urgent that they train their models ethically, implement mechanisms to ensure the accuracy of the content they generate, and collaborate with expert fact-checkers to ensure the integrity of information.

To governments and parliaments across the region, we say clearly: protecting freedom of expression is your duty. Laws that criminalize international funding — as seen in Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and El Salvador, joining similar legislation in Nicaragua and Guatemala earlier this decade — do not safeguard sovereignty. They are attempts to silence the media and organizations working transparently in service of the public. These laws must be repealed.

Without verification, lies win. We defend the right to information as a human right and a public good. We will not accept any setbacks.

Statement from the Latin American fact-checking network LatamChequea regarding changes to Peru’s international cooperation law and the potential negative impact on civil society.

The Latin American fact-checking network LatamChequea expresses its concern over the legislation recently approved in Peru that modifies Law 27.692, which regulates the operations of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI). The changes pose a risk to freedom of expression and could negatively affect Peru’s ecosystem of independent media, many of which are registered as civil associations.

The law, which is pending enactment or possible veto by President Dina Boluarte, would require NGOs to obtain approval from the APCI—a government agency under Peru’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs—before carrying out projects funded by international organizations. This could interfere with their ability to operate effectively. It would also prohibit NGOs from initiating legal action against the State in national or international courts. In addition to limiting their ability to litigate on behalf of victims of human rights violations committed by the State, this could jeopardize their capacity to file legal actions to obtain public information—a tool often essential to journalistic work.

Independent legal analyses have found that the proposed changes violate several constitutional guarantees, such as the right to freedom of association, the fundamental right to free legal defense for victims and their families, and even the right to journalistic confidentiality in cases where media outlets might be subject to prior control by a government agency to carry out their reporting. Furthermore, the law imposes excessive bureaucratic hurdles and includes disproportionate sanctions for ambiguously defined infractions.

Several entities, including United Nations bodies and the European Union, had already expressed concern during the bill’s consideration due to the risks it poses to the autonomy of non-governmental organizations. The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) also raised concerns, warning that “under the pretext of monitoring foreign funds, the law imposes restrictions that could affect independent organizations and media that rely on external funding for investigative journalism” and that, if enforced, “it limits the freedoms of association, expression, and political participation of civil society organizations.”

The restrictions imposed by this law represent a direct threat to the work of independent media and fact-checkers in Peru, who play a vital role in combating disinformation and promoting accountability. Obstructing their access to independent funding and legal tools to defend the right to information undermines journalism and weakens democracy in the region.

At LatamChequea, we are deeply concerned about the impact this legislation could have on the work of independent fact-checkers in Peru, many of whom operate as civil associations. This measure aligns with other initiatives in the region aimed at controlling and limiting independent, high-quality journalism.

We reaffirm our commitment to defending press freedom and reject any attempt at state control that restricts journalistic work and the efforts of civil society.

Statement from the organizations that make up the LatamChequea network regarding the changes Meta announced to its content moderation policy.

Meta announced on Tuesday the end of its Third Party Fact-Checking (3PFC) program in the United States, which will be replaced by a community notes system similar to the one used by the platform X (formerly Twitter).

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of the company that owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, justified the decision—without providing evidence—claiming the fact-checking system had “too many mistakes” and “too much censorship,” and accused fact-checkers of being politically biased.

We are concerned that, in justifying his decision, Meta’s founder is equating fact-checking journalism with censorship, when in no case do fact-checkers decide what happens to content. Our work ends when we label posts as true, false, or misleading, based on a rigorous verification process that follows a public methodology.

Fact-checkers have always defended freedom of expression. What we seek is to provide evidence, verified information, and context about what is circulating, in order to empower users to make informed decisions—not to remove or censor content.

Positive impact in the fight against disinformation

Fact-checking journalism did not begin with Meta’s program; there are organizations in the region that have been doing this work since 2010. The work of fact-checkers has been evaluated many times, showing that it helps correct misconceptions on a variety of topics in different contexts and contributes to limiting the spread of disinformation, among other benefits. Even labels on social media posts—such as those used by Meta—have proven effective in reducing belief in disinformation.

The independent fact-checking program has been implemented by Meta since 2016 to help fight disinformation on its platforms, and several members of LatamChequea are part of it. In the program, fact-checking journalists certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) analyze potentially misleading posts and, if the evidence shows they are true, false, or misleading, they apply a label. Then, it is the company—not the fact-checkers—that decides what to do with this information. As Meta has explained on multiple occasions, the platform’s policy is to reduce the visibility of the content, add context to posts, and alert those who shared them that new information is available. False content is not deleted or made inaccessible.

Decisions like the one Meta announced tend to increase opacity and take away clarity from a community navigating in the shadows of disinformation.

Since fact-checkers began working with Meta, there have been no claims of bias by the company. One of the requirements of the program is IFCN certification, which includes an analysis of published content to ensure that there is no political bias—one of the basic principles of fact-checking journalism. According to the program’s own rules, posts by politicians are not subject to verification.

Meta also did not present any evidence of errors in the work done by fact-checkers. According to data the company submitted to the European Union, of the content whose visibility was mistakenly reduced, only 3.15% was due to fact-checking—the lowest percentage among all categories, as noted by the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN).

Eliminating this kind of program, which aims to counter the effects of disinformation, benefits actors who seek to influence public opinion or profit from falsehoods. At a time when distinguishing truth from falsehood is increasingly difficult, this decision brings one clear certainty: it is true that disinformation producers are celebrating and preparing to take advantage of this window of opportunity.

Fact-checking journalism is more necessary than ever

Disinformation can erode trust in democratic systems, confuse citizens, and even lead them to make dangerous decisions about their health, among other consequences. Fact-checkers play a fundamental role, as the Organization of American States (OAS) points out: “Fact-checking agencies, which have grown exponentially in our region in recent years, play an important role in combating disinformation. Through the verification of public discourse, they provide a service that can help citizens navigate a complex—and at times—contaminated public debate.”

Fact-checking journalism has been vital during moments such as the pandemic, elections, and social uprisings, and is one of many necessary strategies to counter disinformation. Measures and accusations made without evidence damage the information ecosystem.

It is essential that governments, international organizations, and platforms like Meta work together to ensure transparency in content moderation policies and strengthen regulation of the digital environment. Only then can we protect human rights and ensure a balance between freedom of expression and information integrity.

The Latin American fact-checking network LatamChequea reaffirms its commitment to evidence, data, and access to information for citizens. We will continue working with high journalistic standards to fight disinformation, promote informed public debate, and strengthen international alliances that defend transparency in the digital space.