Delegitimizing the Messenger: the Assault on Fact-Checkers

In one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history, information researchers and fact checkers whose work proved crucial to identifying false information during the 2020 U.S. campaign have been under attack. They have faced a wave of lawsuits, subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee, and online vitriol from actors on the right, driven by false characterizations of their work. Changes by key companies like Meta and X, formerly known as Twitter, reduced their ability to study the information space. As a result, disinformation experts in the US now have fewer resources, institutional support, and access to platform data, all of which are necessary to provide the same type of analysis in 2024 that was possible in 2020.

This chilling effect on information research is not an aberration. In a recently released report, Freedom House documented similar attacks across the globe that seek to delegitimize the work of independent researchers and fact-checkers, spelling serious consequences for democracy in the digital age. 

These attacks are most prevalent in authoritarian environments. Because fact-checkers help hold purveyors of false and misleading information accountable, propagandists have cast doubt about the legitimacy of their work. During Egypt’s deeply flawed presidential election in December 2023, the local media authority launched an investigation into the independent fact-checking platform Saheeh Masr. The site’s “offense” was reporting that the state-owned United Media Services conglomerate issued guidelines preventing stories on a wide range of topics among its affiliates, including prohibiting reporting on cases in which voters may be boycotting the vote or may be pressured to choose a particular candidate.  

Authoritarian governments and their supporters have also set up fake fact-checking units to push their own propaganda. In Russia, the “War on Fakes” Telegram channel, which is run by pro-government actors and rose to prominence following the regime’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has diligently worked to “verify” demonstrably false Kremlin talking points. 

Democratic leaders have also sought to turn fact-checking into political fodder. In India, where the ruling party has harassed independent journalists, censored its critics, and spread false and incendiary narratives about religious minorities, the central government attempted to set up a fact-checking unit that would “correct” what it deemed false reporting about the government’s actions. Thankfully, the country’s courts stepped in to bar the creation of the fact-checking unit after journalists and civil society groups pointed out its potential for abuse.  

Similar to attacks on independent researchers in the United States, South Korea’s ruling party smeared the work of SNUFactCheck, a nonprofit that partnered with Seoul National University and major media outlets, ahead of legislative elections in April 2024. The accusations reportedly drove a major sponsor to withdraw funding for the nonprofit, and the center later suspended its activities indefinitely. The attacks on SNUFactCheck were part of a broader campaign by the ruling party to intimidate independent media engaged in critical reporting.  

Elections serve as a flashpoint for false and misleading information. Coordinated disinformation and harassment campaigns can erode trust in electoral processes and have a chilling effect on democratic engagement, particularly among women and marginalized communities who face a disproportionate number of attacks. Independent research about and fact-checking of the information space can help voters navigate between fact and fiction and make informed decisions that best match their political preferences.  

Fact checkers and disinformation researchers also play a crucial role in uncovering trends in influence operations, the foreign and domestic actors responsible, and the technology they use. For example, in the lead-up to Taiwan’s January election, DoubleThink Lab identified a social media campaign that featured AI-generated avatars smearing former president Tsai Ing-wen. The researchers attributed the campaign with “very high confidence” to the Chinese Communist Party, providing crucial evidence of Beijing’s efforts to interfere in Taiwan’s election. 

Amid a backdrop of declining global freedom and increased attacks against human rights online, fact-checking remains an important part of the puzzle to countering false and misleading information and its insidious effects. The intervention should be paired with a whole-of-society approach to restore trust online led by democratic policymakers, tech companies, and civil society. 

Policymakers should pass regulations that provide vetted researchers with access to data from technology platforms. This is particularly urgent because many social media firms have done the opposite, compounding the deteriorating environment for independent researchers. Meta replaced its CrowdTangle tool, which had allowed for real-time analysis of content across Facebook and Instagram, with Meta Content Library, a far more limited alternative. X also cut off researchers’ ability to access platform data by banning nearly all scraping on its site and locking access to important platform data behind a remarkably expensive paywall.  

Democracies should also seek to increase transparency about how platforms function more broadly. Greater insight into content moderation, algorithmic systems, and political advertisements is crucial for informing better regulations and technological tweaks that safeguard information integrity. 

Finally, greater investment from policymakers, tech companies, and philanthropies is needed to expose influence operations and improve people’s ability to critically consume information. Support for local civil society and media groups in closed environments that do this work is particularly important to counter authoritarians’ grip on information. 

Modern democracy depends on widespread access to reliable and diverse information sources. With proper support, independent researchers and fact-checkers can help rebuild confidence in the online information space. 

Allie Funk is Research Director for Technology and Democracy at Freedom House. Kian Vesteinsson is a Senior Research Analyst for Technology and Democracy at Freedom House. Grant Baker is Research Analyst for Technology and Democracy at Freedom House. They are co-authors of Freedom on the Net 2024: The Struggle for Trust Online.