Fighting Online Misinformation: Why We Need New Approaches

Explore effective strategies for combating false information in online communities through collaborative moderation and fact-checking.

Here's a question that keeps us up at night: what happens when misinformation spreads faster than anyone can fact-check it?

The Scale Problem We're All Facing

The most straightforward approach to fighting misinformation, and what many platforms have relied on, is professional fact-checking. Expert teams analyze claims, verify sources, and publish corrections. It's thorough, it's reliable, and it simply cannot scale to match the volume of false information being created today.

Research from the Carnegie Endowment has documented what many of us have observed firsthand: misinformation spreads faster than corrections can reach people. By the time a fact-checker publishes a debunking, the original false claim has already been shared thousands of times. We're playing an asymmetric game, and the rules aren't in our favor.

This isn't a criticism of professional fact-checkers. They do essential work. But asking them to verify every dubious claim on the internet is like asking a team of lifeguards to patrol every beach on Earth simultaneously.

What If We Crowdsourced the Solution?

Given the scale mismatch, we've been exploring an obvious question: what if more people could participate in fact-checking?

Crowdsourced moderation approaches have shown genuine promise. Research published through INFORMS demonstrates that distributed fact-checking networks can cover significantly more ground than centralized teams alone. When everyday people contribute to verification, the collective effort scales in ways that professional-only approaches cannot.

But there's a catch we need to be honest about.

The ACM has documented that volunteer misinformation responders face real burnout risks. Constantly engaging with false claims, arguing with people who may not want to hear corrections, and watching the same debunked stories resurface again and again takes a toll. Any sustainable solution needs to account for the humans doing this work.

How Professional Networks Actually Operate

One thing that surprised us when we started researching this space: the fact-checking community is more connected than we expected.

Members of the International Fact-Checking Network share verification practices and tips through Slack channels, according to research published in Taylor & Francis journals. When one fact-checker encounters a tricky claim, they can tap into collective expertise from colleagues around the world.

Tools have emerged to support these workflows too. Platforms like Vera.ai and WeVerify provide infrastructure for verification processes, helping fact-checkers work more efficiently and share their findings. This isn't replacing human judgment; it's augmenting it.

The lesson here is that effective misinformation response isn't just about individual effort. It's about building systems and communities that make that effort more impactful.

Trust Is Local

Here's something we didn't fully appreciate until we dug into the research: the most effective misinformation interventions often happen at the community level.

Work documented on arXiv shows that local leaders, whether in faith communities, youth organizations, or immigrant networks, play an outsized role in building trust and resilience against manipulation. When a trusted community member shares accurate information, it carries weight that an anonymous fact-check simply cannot match.

This makes intuitive sense. We're more likely to listen to someone we know and trust than a stranger on the internet. The same dynamics that make misinformation spread through social networks can work in the opposite direction when trusted voices share corrections.

Researchers describe this as building "cognitive resilience," essentially creating a firewall in communities that helps people recognize manipulation before they share it further. It's not about telling people what to think. It's about giving them better tools to evaluate what they encounter.

Where We Think This Is Heading

So where does all this leave us? We see a few patterns emerging.

First, human-AI collaborative workflows seem like the most promising path forward for claim verification at scale. AI systems can flag potential misinformation and surface relevant evidence, while humans make the final judgment calls on nuanced claims. Neither alone is sufficient; together, they might be.

Second, real-time detection matters. As the World Economic Forum has highlighted, systems that can identify emerging misinformation and alert moderators quickly give us a chance to respond before false claims spread widely. Speed is a competitive advantage we've been ceding to misinformation creators.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, we need to invest in community-level resilience alongside technical solutions. The best detection system in the world won't help if people don't trust the corrections it produces.

None of this is simple. We're not going to solve misinformation with a single product launch or policy change. But understanding the landscape, the scale challenges, the human costs, the power of communities, and the potential of collaborative approaches, feels like a necessary first step.

The question isn't whether we can eliminate misinformation entirely. It's whether we can build systems and communities that are more resilient to it. We think the answer is yes, but it's going to take all of us working together to get there.

This post is part of our ongoing exploration of how technology and community can work together to address information integrity challenges.

Sources & References6