Moderation/fact checking by the public does not therefore mean that it is correct/objective/fair. If a hundred extra users here tomorrow mainly rate my posts positively, there will be more than a +1.
The main sources of disinformation do not just come from one user, but from a network of users. That moderation should be proof that the information is correct, but if that moderation is not done independently, that moderation is also not reliable. That is exactly what is happening more and more at X. The wars that are going on are also largely being waged online. The truth is always the first victim. If you search for X why you are right on a certain topic, you will always find “evidence”. The algorithm will then give you even more of that information, making you even more convinced that you are right. With public moderation, from users who receive information through the algorithm, you will not immediately get a correct picture.
Today, more and more people get their “news” from social media. I tend to get it from APnews, newsweek, Reuters, thefactual, …. in an attempt to find more neutral news and then form my own image as objectively as possible.
An extensive study was commissioned by the European Commission into disinformation and its spread on social media. If you want a fact check…
https://disinfocode.eu/wp…ion-september-22-2023.pdf
