Let's talk (again) about why fact-checking works
By Angie D. Holan
At a recent Northwestern University conference on disinformation, several speakers argued that fact-checking “doesn’t work” — that it can't scale online, and that platforms don't care. These comments are spreading even among people who care about truth and accuracy.
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.
Instead, fact-checking gives people accurate information when they need it, and on social media it slows the spread of viral lies. Rigorous communications research has shown repeatedly that debunking and media literacy reminders do work to keep people better informed.
And this approach has been deployed at scale. 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. False claims still circulated, but they didn't go viral at the same rates. This program continues today, everywhere but the United States.
We can’t fully defend these programs, though, because they’re not very transparent, and that’s a problem. People couldn't tell that there were millions of fact-check interventions happening behind the scenes. They only saw that false information still existed, and concluded fact-checking failed. But reducing viral spread by 20, 30, 40% in specific interventions isn't failure.
Today, these programs are being dismantled, not because they didn't work, but because powerful actors decided they didn't want them to work.
We also can’t afford to say fact-checking “doesn't work” when what we mean is “there's still too much profit in fraud and political lying” or “it's not the only answer” or “fact-checking needs more effective distribution.” Those are problems with implementation and political will, not fundamental flaws in the idea of correcting false information. When we collapse those distinctions, we give ammunition to those who want to justify abandoning fact-checking entirely. That abandonment serves people with money, power or political goals, not the public. Precision matters here.
This precision matters because accepting the premise that fact-checking is futile can lead to its defunding and abandonment. We make it easier for platforms to walk away and for governments to disinvest. We increase the public’s feelings of powerlessness and frustration. Acknowledging challenges is necessary. Declaring defeat is not.
Fact-checking is one essential tool for creating an information environment where everyone has ready access to high-quality information, in order to make informed decisions about their lives. That goal remains worth fighting for. But achieving it requires us to be precise about what the real problems are — and to be honest about who is working toward that goal and who has decided to work against it.
I’m not surprised that people who profit from weakening content moderation say fact-checking doesn’t work. But when it comes from people who actually care about truth and information integrity, it’s time to lovingly correct these friends and tell them why they're wrong.
