Online authors are 32 per cent more likely to delete their own false or misleading posts if they are publicly corrected by their peers, a new study has found.
The research, published in the journal Information Systems Research, suggests that “crowdchecking” — such as X’s Community Notes feature — is an effective tool for curbing misinformation because it relies on social pressure rather than controversial top-down censorship.
The study, conducted by researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, and the University of Virginia, found that an author’s decision to retract a post is “primarily driven by social concerns”.
“You worry,” said coauthor Huaxia Rui, a professor at URochester’s Simon Business School, “that it’s going to hurt your online reputation if others find your information misleading.”
Researchers analysed X’s Community Notes, which requires a corrective note to earn a “helpfulness” score of at least 0.4 from a diverse range of users before it is shown publicly. The team used a causal inference method to compare 264,600 X posts with notes just above this public threshold to those with notes just below it (which remained private).
The results were striking:
- Posts with public correction notes were 32 per cent more likely to be deleted by their authors than those with private notes.
- Public notes also accelerated the deletions.
- Verified X users (those with a blue check mark) were “particularly quick” to delete flagged posts, suggesting a greater concern for maintaining their credibility.
The effect was consistent across two study periods, one before the 2024 US presidential election — a time when misinformation typically surges — and one after.
“Trying to define objectively what is misinformation and then removing that content is controversial and may even backfire,” noted Rui. “In the long run, I think a better way for misleading posts to disappear is for the authors themselves to remove those posts.”
The team concludes that crowdchecking “strikes a balance between protecting First Amendment rights and the urgent need to curb misinformation”.
“Ultimately,” Rui said, “the voluntary removal of misleading or false information is a more civic and possibly more sustainable way to resolve problems.”
