Community Notes Fails to Tackle Misinformation on X

Concerns are growing regarding the effectiveness of X’s Community Notes crowd-sourced moderation strategy, particularly in combating misinformation.

Following a significant enhancement to the backend architecture of Community Notes, aimed at expediting the display of approved Notes, The Washington Post has released a report indicating that the Community Notes system is falling short in addressing misinformation effectively within the app.

The findings stem from investigative efforts by The Post and insights from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), highlighting that the requirement for cross-political consensus among reviewers is undermining the overall efficacy of the Community Notes initiative.

A detailed overview of the current Community Notes process reveals the following steps:

• An X user selects the “Request Community Note” option from the three dots menu associated with a post.
• The Community Notes contributor group receives an alert regarding the post for evaluation.
• An approved Notes contributor assesses the post for accuracy and relevance, subsequently submitting a proposed Note when warranted.
• This proposed Note undergoes a review process by another Notes contributor who possesses a different political perspective, ultimately determining if it will be published or not, based on the established process.

According to the CCDH, the final step is causing significant delays in the flow of Notes, as most proposed Notes fail to achieve the necessary cross-political agreement. This means that a large number of valuable Notes are not being displayed in the app.

Quoting the CCDH:

“Our research revealed that 209 out of 283 misleading posts in our sample related to the U.S. election contained accurate Community Notes that were not visible to all X users, which equates to 74%. We classified notes as ‘accurate’ when they aligned with independent fact-checks, referenced reputable sources, and clarified the misleading nature of the attached post.”

This indicates that in 74% of the instances where a Note was submitted, and deemed accurate by the CCDH, it was never made visible to users within the application.

The CCDH further highlights that posts containing misleading claims related to the upcoming U.S. election have accumulated over 2.9 billion views within the app.

What is hindering these Notes from achieving the necessary consensus?

This chart may provide some clarity:

Among the various false claims circulating on X, a predominant number relate to allegations that the 2020 election was “stolen,” a narrative many Republican voters still support, despite extensive investigations disproving these claims. Notably, Republican candidate Donald Trump continues to endorse this assertion, contributing to the reluctance of Republican Community Notes contributors to engage with this topic.

Following this, claims regarding illegal voter importation have been significantly amplified by X owner Elon Musk, while concerns about the safety of voting systems rank as the third most prevalent topic.

Analyzing the topics, it becomes apparent why these claims are not being addressed through Community Notes, even when factual sources exist to contradict them. The intrinsic nature of certain topics ensures that political adversaries are unlikely to reach consensus, consequently allowing X to amplify these misleading claims within the app.

Despite the presence of concrete evidence to the contrary, many individuals continue to assert the validity of these claims, often attributing them to a larger conspiracy. This perspective underscores the appeal of Community Notes to Musk, who believes that the public should determine what constitutes accurate information, rather than relying on traditional media outlets.

This situation highlights a significant flaw within the Community Notes framework. Even when contributors present factual evidence to counter claims, opposing political views can easily dismiss these assertions, leading to a scenario where no Notes are published as a result.

Further supporting CCDH’s findings, The Washington Post’s analysis revealed that only 79,000 of over 900,000 Community Notes created in 2024 have been made publicly visible, representing less than 9%. Alarmingly, the success rate for displaying a Note has been on a downward trend over time.

Despite a growing number of contributors joining the initiative and an increase in the quantity of Notes produced, the proportion of Notes actually visible to users continues to decline.

The core issue lies in the fact that X has shifted the Community Notes approval mechanism from a fact-based approach to one influenced by ideology, where factual accuracy is overshadowed by the necessity for contributor agreement. Given that consensus may often be unattainable, a significant number of Notes fail to be displayed.

In Musk’s perspective, this situation reflects success, as it empowers the public to determine what is accurate, rather than relying on “mainstream media,” which he frequently critiques as a distorted force within the information landscape.

Musk advocates for the belief that the ultimate fact-checkers are the people themselves; however, if these individuals disregard credible evidence, it raises questions about the sustainability of this approach.