The landscape of digital information is undergoing a profound and rapid transformation, moving away from the traditional, top-down methods of truth-seeking toward a more chaotic, grassroots approach. A newly released special issue of the academic journal Communication & Society, titled “From Fact-Checking to Community Notes: Structural Changes in the Fight Against Disinformation on Social Media,” offers a critical deep dive into this shift. Produced as part of the IBERIFIER Plus project—a key component of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) network—this collection serves as a vital compass for anyone trying to understand why the internet feels so different today than it did just a few years ago. By making this research available through Open Access, the editors, Professors Ramón Salaverría, Lucas Graves, and Raquel Recuero, have ensured that the conversation about the future of our digital public square is open to the public, not just confined to university halls.
At the heart of this shift is a move away from the traditional “third-party fact-checking” model that defined the early 2020s. For years, platforms like Facebook and X relied on external organizations to verify claims, label inaccuracies, and curb the spread of viral falsehoods. However, as documented in Volume 39 (Issue 1, June 2026) of Communication & Society, that era is quickly fading. We are witnessing a clear pivot toward user-driven moderation tools, most notably the implementation of “Community Notes.” This transition represents a fundamental change in philosophy: rather than relying on curated expert groups, platforms are increasingly outsourcing the burden of truth to the unpredictable, collective will of their own user bases. It is a transition from an institutional, gatekeeper-led model to a populist, crowdsourced environment where the community—for better or worse—decides what is true.
This, however, is not happening in a vacuum; it is unfolding against a backdrop of intense global volatility. The special issue highlights how this change in moderation strategy is deeply intertwined with the shifting geopolitical realities of 2025 and 2026. For instance, the rise of “user-driven” models coincides with unprecedented legal pressures on platforms like TikTok regarding concerns over foreign interference, as governments grow increasingly wary of how social media might influence national security. The researchers point out that the strategies we see today are, in many ways, reactive. They are not necessarily designed to be the “perfect” solution for truth, but are instead defensive maneuvering in an environment where platforms are constantly balancing local laws, international tensions, and the mercurial demands of global power structures.
Perhaps the most significant context provided by the research is the impact of the domestic political climate in the United States, particularly following the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term in early 2025. The transition in moderation policies is inextricably linked to the changing relationship between big tech companies and the executive branch. As legal and political incentives have shifted, so too has the appetite of these platforms to act as arbiters of truth. By shifting the responsibility to “Community Notes,” platforms are effectively shielding themselves from the criticism of being “censors,” while simultaneously offloading the exhausting and politically charged task of content moderation to the users themselves. It is a strategic retreat that allows these corporations to maintain the scale of their platforms while washing their hands of the direct responsibility for identifying misinformation.
The implications of this shift are both fascinating and deeply concerning. While the democratic potential of community-driven moderation—where users participate in the verification process—has its fair share of cheerleaders, the research warns of the structural risks involved. When we move from expert-led fact-checking to user-led notation, we risk replacing rigorous investigation with the “tyranny of the majority.” If the loudest groups on a platform can influence the narrative—or use tools like Community Notes to confuse or overwhelm users—then the very mechanism designed to stop disinformation might end up being used to facilitate it. The researchers urge us to look past the promise of “user empowerment” and examine the cold, structural realities of these systems, as they are now the primary filters through which the global population consumes information.
Ultimately, this study serves as a necessary wake-up call for users, regulators, and scholars alike. It reminds us that we are currently living through a major experimental phase in how information is governed. As we navigate the complex, often messy reality of the mid-2020s, the findings within this special issue of Communication & Society suggest that there is no going back to the old ways of content moderation. We are entering an era where the “truth” is increasingly defined by social consensus rather than objective, expert-driven scrutiny. Whether this leads to a more informed, critical public or a more fragmented and polarized information ecosystem remains to be seen, but the IBERIFIER Plus project offers the best available map for navigating this uncharted territory. By engaging with this research, we take the first step in understanding the invisible structures that are currently shaping our digital reality.