META Changes to Community NOTES – Could be Very Useful in Combatting Scammers

Meta (Facebook & Instagram) Ends US Fact-Checking, Introduces Community Notes – a Game Changer with Scammers?

Primary Category: Online Safety

Intended Audience: General Public

Author:
•  SCARS Editorial Team – Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.

About This Article

Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking program in the U.S. and replace it with a user-driven “Community Notes” system significantly changes how scams and misinformation are addressed on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. While this model allows the public to flag and contextualize scam posts, it removes penalties and enforcement tools that previously helped slow the spread of harmful content.

Without expert oversight or automatic content suppression, scammers could easily outpace user warnings, especially on a platform with billions of users and fast-moving fraud schemes. Community Notes depends entirely on volunteer participation, speed, and consensus—factors that make it unreliable as a primary defense against scams. For victims, this is a shift from proactive moderation to reactive crowdsourcing. It gives users a voice, but no shield.

Meta (Facebook & Instagram) Ends US Fact-Checking, Introduces Community Notes – a Game Changer with Scammers?

According to META

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, will officially end its fact-checking program in the United States on Monday. The decision was announced earlier this year, and the company plans to replace the fact-checking system with a new feature called ‘Community Notes’. This change means that no new fact checks will be conducted, and there will be no penalties associated with the new system. The transition to Community Notes is seen as a shift in Meta’s approach to content moderation on its platforms.

Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking program in the United States and replace it with a “Community Notes” system marks a significant shift in how the company approaches content moderation on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Announced in January 2025 and set to fully take effect on Monday, April 7, 2025, this change reflects a pivot from a centralized, expert-driven model to a decentralized, user-driven one. Your specific question—whether Community Notes will allow the public to identify posts from scammers and mark them as scams—is a critical lens through which to analyze this shift. Let’s unpack what this means broadly and then zoom in on the scam angle.

What the Change Means Broadly

Meta’s old fact-checking system, launched in 2016, relied on partnerships with over 90 independent organizations (e.g., PolitiFact, FactCheck.org) to verify content in more than 60 languages, and was almost universally WRONG when it came to flagging scams and scammers.

Posts flagged as false faced penalties like reduced visibility or warning labels, but while the system had some value against false information – in their eyes, was useless against scams. The program aimed to curb misinformation—think viral hoaxes or election interference—without Meta itself being the “arbiter of truth.” But CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in a January 7, 2025, video, called it “too politically biased” and a trust-killer, especially in the U.S., citing a “cultural tipping point” post-Trump’s election win. The new Community Notes model, inspired by X’s system under Elon Musk, flips this script: users, not experts, will write and rate notes to add context to posts, with no automatic penalties like demotion. Meta’s rolling it out in the U.S. first, starting with testing on March 18, 2025, and plans to refine it over the year.

This shift signals a few big-picture changes:

• • Free Speech Push: Zuckerberg’s framing—echoing his 2019 Georgetown speech—leans hard into “free expression,” even if it means “catching less bad stuff.” It’s a reaction to years of conservative backlash claiming fact-checking censored right-wing voices, amplified by Trump’s threats and Musk’s X overhaul.
  • Cost and Responsibility: Ditching paid fact-checkers cuts costs and offloads labor to unpaid users. Meta’s not deciding what’s true anymore; the crowd is. This aligns with a broader tech trend of dodging accountability under Section 230’s legal shield.
  • Political Timing: With Trump’s inauguration looming (January 20, 2025), Meta’s moves—like donating $1 million to his fund and elevating Republican Joel Kaplan—suggest a strategic cozying up to the incoming administration, which has railed against moderation.

Will Community Notes Let the Public Mark Scams?

Can the public use Community Notes to identify scammers and tag their posts as scams? The answer is yes, in theory, but with limits that could make it hit-or-miss in practice.

Here’s how it shakes out based on what we know:

How It Could Work

• • User-Driven Flags: Like X’s Community Notes (launched as Birdwatch in 2021), Meta’s version lets eligible users write notes on posts they think need context—say, a shady “crypto guru” promising riches. If enough users with diverse perspectives rate it “helpful,” it could appear publicly, warning, “This post matches patterns of a known scam—see link for details.”
  • Scam Focus: Meta’s Joel Kaplan, in a January 7 statement, said the company will still moderate “high-severity violations” like fraud and scams via automated systems and user reports. Community Notes could complement this by letting users call out scam posts directly, especially subtler ones algorithms miss (e.g., pig butchering or fake giveaways). X users already do this—posts on April 2, 2025, show Community Notes tweaking its scoring to better handle scam-related notes.
  • Public Empowerment: Without penalties like reduced reach, a scam post stays visible, but a clear note could deter victims. Imagine a fake job ad with a note: “This links to a site known for stealing personal data—reported to Meta.” It’s grassroots vigilance, not top-down censorship.

Why It Might Falter

• • Consensus Hurdle: On X, notes only go live if contributors with “different perspectives” agree—a safeguard against bias but a bottleneck for speed. A Washington Post report (January 8, 2025) found just 7.4% of X’s election-related notes in 2024 got posted, dropping to 5.7% in October. Scams, often urgent, might slip through if consensus lags.
  • Volunteer Limits: X contributor “Wang” told the Post that unpaid users lack the “manpower or resources” to tackle all misinformation, let alone fast-moving scams. Meta’s billions of users dwarf X’s 600 million, amplifying this strain. A scammer could post, cash out, and vanish before a note sticks.
  • No Teeth: Unlike fact-checking, Community Notes won’t throttle a post’s spread. A scam could rack up victims while users debate its note. The Center for Countering Digital Hate (October 2024) found X’s false posts often outpaced their notes by billions of views—Meta’s scale could magnify this.
  • Expertise Gap: Fact-checkers brought training and rigor; users might not. A note calling out a scam could be wrong or miss nuance (e.g., legit crypto ads vs. fraud). University of Illinois research (October 2024) praised X’s notes for retracting bad tweets, but mixed studies—like the Center’s—question their reach and accuracy.

Scam-Specific Implications

Scams cost Americans billions yearly—$8.8 billion in 2022 alone (FTC)—and social media’s a hotbed (40% of 18–29-year-olds’ losses start there). Meta’s old system caught some, but critics like BankInfoSecurity (January 7) warn this pullback could “embolden financial scammers.” Community Notes might tag a phishing link or fake profile if users act fast, but without proactive moderation, it’s reactive at best. Australia’s push to hold platforms accountable for scams contrasts sharply with this U.S. laissez-faire shift—Meta’s keeping fact-checkers elsewhere for now, hinting at regional pressure.

What It Means Long-Term

• For Scam Victims: You might see more public callouts of scammers, but don’t count on consistent protection. It’s a megaphone for savvy users, not a shield. Fraud fighters will lean harder on reporting tools and external watchdogs.
• For Meta: It’s a gamble—less “censorship” backlash, lower costs, but more unchecked lies and scams could erode trust further. Zuckerberg’s “we’ll catch less bad stuff” admission (January 7) is a red flag for accountability.
• For Society: Misinformation researchers (e.g., Public Citizen, January 7) fear a “toxic flood of lies.” Scams aside, divisive conspiracies could thrive, especially with no penalties. X’s mixed results—some notes work, many don’t—suggest Meta’s betting on an unproven fix.

Bottom Line

Community Notes will let the public flag scam posts, and some might get marked effectively if the crowd’s sharp and quick. But it’s a far cry from the old system’s muscle—slower, less authoritative, and penalty-free. Scammers might dodge notes long enough to strike, especially on Meta’s massive turf. It’s a trade-off: more user power, less control. Whether that curbs scams or feeds them depends on how well Meta tunes the system—and how much its users step up. Given X’s patchy track record, it appears to be a coin toss leaning toward chaos.

It all depends on the communities that get behind this.

What do you think—does this feel like a win for scam victims or a gift to scammers?

Please Rate This Article

Please Leave Us Your Comment
Also, tell us of any topics we might have missed.

Thank you for your comment. You may receive an email to follow up. We never share your data with marketers.

-/ 30 /-

What do you think about this?
Please share your thoughts in a comment above!