Why Elon Musk Questions Fact-Checkers While X Users Rely on Them

Carlos Hernández-Echevarría is Assistant Director, Head of Public Policy & Institutional Development at Fundación Maldita.es. This piece references a new report from Maldita.es, Faster, Trusted, and More Useful: The Impact of Fact-Checkers in X Community Notes.

In a recent turn of events, Elon Musk has put Community Notes—the feature designed to let users flag and annotate tweets—under scrutiny. The billionaire’s comments regarding users upvoting notes he disagrees with signal a shift from his previously espoused principle, “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” (the voice of the people is the voice of God). What’s even more intriguing is the discrepancy between Musk’s view of fact-checkers and that of the broader X user community.

Since acquiring Twitter, now rebranded as X, Musk has openly criticized professional fact-checking organizations, labeling them as “liars” and “evil.” His skepticism contrasts starkly with a revealing new report from Fundación Maldita.es, which investigates the dynamics of Community Notes and the presence of professional fact-checkers. This study highlights that the relationship between these two entities is not merely adversarial; it is complex and filled with nuance.

The Role of Fact-Checkers in Community Notes

The report from Maldita.es assesses over 1.2 million Community Notes proposed by users throughout the past year. Surprisingly, it finds that professional fact-checking organizations are the third most referenced source, trailing only X itself and Wikipedia. This suggests that users on the platform may have a different appreciation for the role of fact-checkers than Musk does.

One metric stands out: approximately 1 in every 27 Community Notes globally references a fact-checking organization. This indicates a notable degree of trust in these organizations among the community, contradicting Musk’s narrative. The data reveals that when users encounter a Community Note that cites fact-checking sources, they often engage with it more positively.

Trustworthiness of Fact-Checkers

The report further emphasizes the credibility gained when Community Notes are backed by factual sources. Musk and others at X have long stressed the importance of representing diverse viewpoints; interestingly, 8.3% of Community Notes earn enough ratings from varied users to be marked as useful. However, the odds significantly improve when these notes cite fact-checking articles—this number climbs to 15.2% when a note references a European fact-checking source.

This heightened trust in fact-checkers is not just a hypothetical; it is backed by data. The study found that notes incorporating fact-checking citations are not only rated as useful sooner, but they are also proposed more rapidly than their counterparts. Specifically, Community Notes that provide a link to a fact checker were submitted after a median of just 4 hours and 25 minutes—23 minutes faster than typical notes. Furthermore, these valuable notes become visible on the platform around 90 minutes sooner than other types of notes.

The Paradox of Consensus vs. Factuality

While these findings validate the work of fact-checkers in combating misinformation on X, they do not constitute an endorsement of the platform’s current operational model for Community Notes. It’s crucial to note that the focus on achieving consensus should never take precedence over ensuring factual accuracy. The urgency with which misinformation spreads necessitates immediate and reliable countermeasures, and professional fact-checkers have repeatedly demonstrated their worth in this arena.

Despite facing a challenging environment—marked by powerful voices questioning their effectiveness—fact-checkers continue to earn respect for their commitment to integrity and impartiality. As misinformation proliferates, the trust that users place in professionally fact-checked sources remains vital. Perhaps it’s time for both Musk and Zuckerberg to take note of these insights from the data.