Fact-checking, at the center of the controversy over Brazil’s new policies, has limitations, but is important against misinformation, according to research carried out in different countries around the world.
The topic came to light after the businessman announced the end of the fact-checking program with partner agencies on Meta’s platforms, which he owns, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp. Big tech will migrate to a model in which users themselves leave notes on disinformative content.
According to a statement sent by the company to the Brazilian government, the measure will begin to be applied in the USA and will then eventually be expanded to other countries.
It was adopted amid Zuckeberg’s alignment with the elected US president, under the argument of avoiding mistakes and protecting freedom of expression.
Research on fact-checking indicates that the effectiveness of fact-checking (i.e., the ability to convince the receiver that false information is false) can vary according to some aspects. Among them, the user’s ideology, the degree of political radicalization and the format of the content.
One of the most prominent academic articles on the topic.
Carried out by researchers from Northwestern and Temple universities, in the USA, and Haifa, in Israel, it pointed out that checking political disinformation can bring good results depending on how and when it happens.
According to the study, published in the journal Political Communication in 2019, the impact of checking can be influenced by several aspects. One of them is the inclusion of graphic elements indicating the “degree of truth” of the message. Contrary to what one might assume, the article indicates that the feature appears to make the fix less effective.
Checking also seemed less efficient when checkers corrected parts of a speech rather than the entire statement. Texts with simple words tend to be more effective.
An aspect that also seems to be relevant is the relationship between what was said and the political position of the news reader. The survey showed that fact-checking compatible with the recipient’s ideology is better received than one that denies what the person already believes.
One in the Journal of Experimental Psychology also considered the user’s political stance. He identified that misinformation circulates more among far-right individuals when compared to centrist people. Furthermore, these recipients were more resistant to fact-checking.
The analysis was carried out with conservative and far-right people from Spain in three experiments. They completed a survey indicating their likelihood of sharing posts with and without verification, in addition to undergoing cognitive tests and a neuroimaging study.
The work involved six researchers from institutions in both countries, such as the Autonomous University of Barcelona and New York University.
Another study carried out in 16 European countries showed that fact-checking tends to be successful in combating misinformation. The research also concluded that the identity of the verifier — and the credibility he has — matters.
According to the authors, the experiment took into account countries with different political and media realities. Although the check generated positive results in all cases, some places were more receptive to it, such as Greece and Italy, compared to Belgium and France, for example.
The analysis was carried out in 2022 based on an online questionnaire answered by a thousand people per country. The selection took into account population aspects such as gender, age and education. The study included seven researchers from institutions such as the University of Amsterdam and the University of Antwerp, in Belgium.
According to experts interviewed by Sheetstudies on the effectiveness of checking show mixed results from a measure that serves as a palliative to contain the misinformation scenario on the internet. Still, they consider that checking is important to try to contain the high flow of fake news, which would be more appropriately dealt with by regulating the platforms.
Thales Lelo, professor of communication at UFMG (Federal University of Minas Gerais), points out that the checking was a palliative proposed by these companies to try to avoid regulation of the sector, which would impact their revenues.
“Checking is better than nothing, but palliative agreements do not address the problem in a massive way,” he says, for whom Meta’s recent decision tends to worsen the digital environment.
Fabio Goveia, professor of communication at Ufes (Federal University of Espírito Santo) and coordinator of Labic (Internet and Data Science Laboratory), states that fact-checking has limitations, but is important for dealing with infodemic scenarios already identified by WHO (World Health Organization).
Instead of reducing the work of checkers, he suggests that there be increasingly more transparency about how these agencies work.
Afonso de Albuquerque, professor in the department of Cultural Studies and Media at UFF (Universidade Federal Fluminense) and coordinator of Codes (Reference Center for Teaching Combating Disinformation), points out the lack of standardization and time to carry out checks as limitations. .
He compares misinformation to a tsunami, and checking to an ineffective attempt to deal with each wave that hits the beach. The solution, he states, involves regulating platforms and studying disinformation as a field of knowledge, in order to consolidate the understanding of all the variables that help form the flood of fake news routinely experienced.
