Announced in the first half of this yearA mechanism called "Community Notes"After replacing third-party fact-checking, Meta's Chief Security Officer Guy Rosen said earlier that all users will be allowed to participate in the test, allowing them to rate existing comments and provide additional comments for posts, thereby creating a community that is closer to the ideal of "jointly maintaining information health."
In the current test, even if you are not a qualified note author with permission to write, you can still give a "like" or "unlike" to the note you see, to express whether the note is helpful or not. However, the social note feature on platforms such as Facebook is still only available for testing in the United States.
Meta hopes to enhance the credibility and usefulness of comments through an online community feedback mechanism. Furthermore, users can proactively request comments on specific content. If they believe a post is misleading, lacks context, or requires additional context, they can submit a request, allowing the author to provide appropriate additional explanations later.
In addition to the updated interaction mechanism, Meta is also testing a notification system. When a user likes, comments, or shares a post that has subsequently been annotated, the platform will send a notification notifying them of the new social media annotation. This design follows Meta's previous practice of notifying users of fact-checking results, allowing users to more quickly identify information that may be controversial or require reconfirmation.
We're testing new Community Notes features at Meta:
Anyone can now request a note or rate if a note is helpful
– Users get notified when posts they've interacted with receive a Community Note
– 70,000+ contributors have written 15,000+ notes (6% published).
Learn more or join:… pic.twitter.com/WCQC3CMnbe— Guy Rosen (@guyro) September 10, 2025
Currently, there are more than 7 note writers participating in the project, and a total of more than 1.5 notes have been completed. However, only about 6% of the notes have been publicly published. This shows that Meta still maintains very strict quality control. It also means that this project is still in the early experimental stage, and the amount of content and coverage still need to grow.
Meta's approach, while similar in design concept to "X"'s social media comments, has also sparked debate about whether removing traditional fact-checking will affect the platform's effectiveness in combating misinformation. After all, several previous studies have shown that "X"'s social media comments, while emphasizing free speech, are still limited in their effectiveness in curbing the spread of misinformation.
However, from another perspective, Meta's approach represents an attempt to make platform governance more transparent and open, encouraging users to participate in clarifying and supplementing information. This could be a fairer mechanism for brands, media outlets, and ordinary users, allowing diverse perspectives to be presented, rather than relying solely on the single perspective of official or third-party fact-checking organizations.
As more social platforms attempt to replace centralized censorship with open collaboration, the credibility of future information may no longer be determined solely by official verification, but rather by the consensus of a wider audience. Meta's expanded test of social commenting provides an important case study in this trend. Whether this approach can truly balance free speech with the prevention of misinformation remains to be seen.
