平台用用户众包核查信息真伪，但难抵偏见影响。
Community Moderation and the New Epistemology of Fact Checking on Social Media
- 引入用户众包标注机制，替代部分专业审核
- 用户判断受立场和文化影响，共识难以形成
- 适合关注社交媒体治理与信息可信度研究者
社交媒体平台传统上依赖内部审核团队及独立事实核查机构识别并标记误导性内容。近年来，包括X（前推特）和Meta在内的平台转向社区驱动的内容审核，推出自己的众包事实核查功能——社区笔记。若能有效扩展并管理，此类社区核查举措有望以更广的覆盖和更快的速度对抗虚假信息，如同以往社区协作成功应对垃圾信息一般。然而，内容审核，尤其是误导性信息识别，本质上更为复杂。公众对真相的认知常受个人偏见、政治倾向和文化背景影响，导致在何为误导性内容上难以达成共识。这表明，尽管社区努力具有价值，但无法取代专业事实核查人员不可或缺的作用。本文系统考察主流平台当前的误导性信息检测方法，探讨社区驱动审核的新兴角色，并批判性评估大规模众包核查的潜力与挑战。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Social media platforms have traditionally relied on internal moderation teams and partnerships with independent fact-checking organizations to identify and flag misleading content. Recently, however, platforms including X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have shifted towards community-driven content moderation by launching their own versions of crowd-sourced fact-checking -- Community Notes. If effectively scaled and governed, such crowd-checking initiatives have the potential to combat misinformation with increased scale and speed as successfully as community-driven efforts once did with spam. Nevertheless, general content moderation, especially for misinformation, is inherently more complex. Public perceptions of truth are often shaped by personal biases, political leanings, and cultural contexts, complicating consensus on what constitutes misleading content. This suggests that community efforts, while valuable, cannot replace the indispensable role of professional fact-checkers. Here we systemically examine the current approaches to misinformation detection across major platforms, explore the emerging role of community-driven moderation, and critically evaluate both the promises and challenges of crowd-checking at scale.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。