Let's talk (again) about why fact-checking works - Poynter

"That's frankly alarming. Fact-checking has enough battles to fight without taking friendly fire. So let me say this plainly: We need to talk, because fact-checking works. First, let's talk about what "doesn't work" actually means. Fact-checking isn't designed to eliminate all false information - that's an impossible standard. If your expectation is that fact-checking will punish liars or change election outcomes, you're setting it up to fail no matter how effective it actually is."

"For years, Meta distributed fact checks to users who encountered false content across millions of interactions, and algorithmically attached fact-checking to additional similar claims. This program worked not by suppressing information, but by interrupting viral sharing. A new study shows that when users saw a fact check attached to content they were about to share, sharing rates dropped. Some users even went back and purposefully deleted their posts."

Fact-checking does not aim to eradicate all false information; setting that expectation guarantees perceived failure. Fact-checking provides accurate information at the moment of need and reduces the viral spread of misleading content. Communications research demonstrates that debunking and media-literacy reminders improve public understanding. Large-scale platform efforts, such as Meta's distribution of fact checks and algorithmic attachment of related corrections, reduced sharing and prompted some users to delete posts. Lack of transparency about behind-the-scenes interventions led observers to underestimate impact. Continued deployment and greater transparency are important to maintain and defend effective fact-checking interventions.

Read at Poynter