Which aggregators partner with independent fact-checkers and how transparent are those partnerships?
Executive summary
Major platforms have historically partnered with independent fact‑checkers: Meta ran an eight‑year third‑party program that included PolitiFact and dozens of IFCN‑certified outlets and accounted for large shares of some organizations’ income (Meta announced ending U.S. third‑party support in January 2025) [1] [2] [3]. Independent trackers show roughly 443 active fact‑checking projects worldwide in 2025 and report that nearly 160 participated in Meta’s program before the U.S. pullback [4] [5].
1. Platforms and the fact‑checker ecosystem — who partnered with whom
Meta’s long‑running Third Party Fact‑Checking program enlisted outlets such as PolitiFact and others certified through the International Fact‑Checking Network (IFCN) and, in Europe, the EFCSN; Meta described those groups as independent and certified partners used to flag and rate content across Facebook, Instagram and Threads [2] [3]. Independent counts from the Duke Reporters’ Lab show about 443 active projects globally in 2025 and that roughly 160 projects were participating in Meta’s program early that year, underlining how central the platform was to the ecosystem [4] [5].
2. How partnerships worked in practice — roles, limits and mechanics
Under Meta’s model fact‑checkers independently chose claims to investigate and produced original reporting; Meta appended fact‑check articles or notices to content but fact‑checkers never had the power to remove posts — Meta retained removal authority [1] [2] [3]. Meta’s Transparency Center explains fact‑checkers call sources, authenticate media and issue ratings; platform algorithms then use those ratings to apply labels or reduce distribution in many countries [3].
3. Transparency standards and certification — the IFCN and EFCSN lens
Platforms generally relied on external codes and audits: Meta emphasized partnerships with fact‑checkers certified by the IFCN or EFCSN, bodies that publish codes of principles and run assessments to signal nonpartisanship and transparency [3] [6]. The IFCN’s public code requires disclosures and independent oversight; outlets can be re‑assessed periodically, a design intended to make platform partnerships more transparent to users and funders [6].
4. Money, influence and disclosure concerns
Reporting highlights that platform funding shaped the field: Meta contributed substantial funding to fact‑checking programs since 2016 and by 2023 platform partnerships made up a significant share of some organizations’ revenue, a dynamic critics say creates perceived dependence and potential conflicts [7]. Poynter and others documented that Meta’s partnerships and grants were material to many fact‑checkers’ budgets — a fact that has fueled debate about independence and transparency [1] [7].
5. Criticisms, politicization and alternative models
Meta’s decision to end U.S. third‑party partnerships in January 2025 was framed by the company as a shift toward community labeling similar to X’s Community Notes; critics including Full Fact warned the move risks weakening professional first responders to misinformation, while platform leaders argued third‑party programs were politically divisive [8] [1]. Commentators note competing visions: centralized, journalist‑driven fact‑checks certified by IFCN versus crowdsourced labeling systems that shift moderation toward users [8] [3].
6. What this means for transparency in practice
When platforms rely on IFCN/EFCSN certification and publish process pages, they increase visible standards — but funding links, the scale of platform influence and the fact that platforms control labeling and removal mean transparency is partial: platforms disclose procedures (e.g., how labels are attached) while financial and operational dependencies remain debated in public reporting [3] [7]. The Duke Reporters’ Lab census shows the practical consequence: a sizable share of global fact‑checkers were tied into platform programs, so platform policy shifts reshape the field [4] [5].
7. Competing viewpoints and limitations of available reporting
Sources agree platforms used IFCN/EFCSN standards and that Meta’s U.S. program ended in early 2025, but they disagree on effects: Full Fact and Reporters’ Lab warn of chilling or damaging effects on misinformation response, while Meta claims the move supports broader speech and community labeling [8] [1] [5]. Available sources do not mention exhaustive lists of every aggregator beyond Meta and its contractors nor detailed contractual terms for every partnership; specific financial breakdowns by outlet (beyond high‑level reporting about material shares) are not provided in the current set of sources [7] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
Platform‑fact‑checker partnerships were extensive, often tied to IFCN/EFCSN certification and materially important to many independent outlets; platforms control how labels are applied and retain removal authority, and recent policy changes — notably Meta’s U.S. pullback in 2025 — have exposed tensions between centralized journalist fact‑checking, platform power and emergent crowdsourced models [3] [2] [8] [5].