Who decides what is true or false?
Hyogo Prefecture’s incumbent governor secured re-election in November 2024, overcoming critical coverage by traditional media. Some have pointed out that misinformation circulating on social media may have distorted voters’ judgment, contributing to his re-election. However, I believe social media has been changing how we understand freedom of expression in elections and democracy itself.
It is evident that intense discourse on social media has a substantial impact on election outcomes and public opinion. It is understandable that some are concerned about the threat that fake or inaccurate information poses to democracy. At the same time, this raises a new challenge: who determines what information is true or false. When the state or mass media unilaterally declares information “false” and forces the public to accept it, it endangers freedom of expression.
In this context, it is worth noting that Meta, the operator of Facebook and Instagram, announced a major policy change in January 2025. Until now, Facebook and Instagram have relied on third-party fact-checking programs to remove misinformation. Recently, however, they introduced the Community Notes system, which allows users to add and share information from diverse perspectives.
In Meta’s fact-checking system, fact-checkers verify information and evaluate its accuracy in cooperation with an independent third-party organization. Upon determining information to be false, measures included restricting distribution, supplying additional context, and offering tools to identify the misinformation and submit feedback.
On the other hand, the Community Notes system, adopted by X (formerly Twitter), is defined as “a mechanism that aims to help users access more accurate information by allowing them to collaborate and add helpful notes to posts that may be misleading.”
While both the fact-checking and the Community Notes system have their respective merits and drawbacks, I believe that the Community Notes system is more reasonable from the standpoint of free expression. The fact-checking system seems fair at first glance, but it can reflect the values and biases of third- party evaluators, potentially resulting in de facto censorship and restricting free speech.
The merits and drawbacks of the Community Notes system
So what advantages and disadvantages do the fact-checking system and the Community Notes system each have?
First, the fact-checking system may serve better when the primary goal is the complete elimination of disinformation and misinformation. This system is based on the EU’s approach to legal restrictions, with the underlying assumption that third-party experts ensure a certain degree of reliability in information assessments.
On the internet, some information can be assessed objectively, while other types cannot, as they rely largely on the subjective views of both senders and receivers.
An example can be seen in the 2024 Hyogo gubernatorial election, where opinions like “the incumbent governor is not bad” were generally not based on objective grounds, aside from debates over whether any actual power harassment occurred. On the other hand, fact-checking by experts and the mass media cannot be entirely neutral, given that fact-checkers have their own standpoints or perspectives. Even among experts, opinions can vary.
I would like to emphasize that attempts to eliminate disinformation and misinformation completely through fact-checking could suppress diverse viewpoints, potentially hindering the free circulation of information essential for sound democratic development and open, vigorous debate based on it.
In contrast, the Community Notes system on X allows users to add extra information to posts. By presenting diverse perspectives, it offers users additional context for forming their own judgements.
Businesses (platform operators) can also benefit from the Community Notes system, as it is more cost-effective than a fact-checking system. Since fact-checking can trigger more disputes over misinformation labels and legal issues, resources for reassessment are necessary.
However, the Community Notes system also has its drawbacks. It tends to be ineffective in cases that demand swift action, such as defamation or copyright infringements. It also lacks a mechanism to promptly remove original posts, even when numerous notes are attached, which can lead to serious consequences in some cases.
While both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, I regard the Community Notes system more highly, as it aligns with the democratic principle that individuals should judge truthfulness of information, not governments or experts.

This view is rooted in the concept of the “marketplace of Ideas,” a legal theory grounded in the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Simply put, it suggests that in a free and open exchange of ideas (speech), competition will operate similarly to an economic market―allowing truth to prevail in the end.
The United States especially prioritizes the preservation of market competition. Restrictions on newspapers, magazines and social media―regardless of their scale―are considered constitutional only when market competition fails to function effectively, such as in cases involving defamation, invasion of privacy, or obscene expression.
Keeping dialogue space alive is the key
The marketplace of ideas emphasizes that no opinion should be excluded from dialogue. Contentious issues are not always resolved immediately; reaching solutions may require years or even decades. Therefore, it is essential to ensure a space for the free exchange of diverse opinions and to establish a foundation that allows individuals to think independently and make their own decisions.
This idea forms the basis of the “counter-speech” or “more speech” principle―the notion that speech should be countered with more speech. Rather than resorting to censorship or bans, more active debate should be encouraged to tackle harmful opinions and misinformation.
Take, for example, the discharge of water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean. Despite the scientific data, people perceive it differently―some call it “treated water,” while others view it as “contaminated water.” With these matters, it is more important to maintain a space where diverse opinions can be continuously expressed, rather than rushing to a conclusion.
In recent years, there have been calls for immediate legal regulation even in cases where certain expressions are merely regarded offensive or annoying. Viewed through the lens of the marketplace of ideas, such measures should be approached with caution.
For example, recently, more candidates have appeared in political broadcasts simply trying to attract attention, while some election posters appear inappropriate or undignified. However, as long as there is no clear and direct harm to others, such expressions should, in principle, be permitted, and then, it is preferable to address them through counter-speech.
Even when regulation is deemed necessary, it is essential to consider whether it qualifies as a less restrictive alternative (LRA). For example, rather than relying solely on bans, online sexual content potentially harmful to youth can be addressed through more flexible measures, such as parental control apps to filter such material.
However, the marketplace of ideas theory has faced various criticisms. Many argue that a laissez-faire environment does not always ensure the spread of accurate information in the age of social media.
Indeed, emotional and provocative content spreads rapidly on social media, while optimized feeds based on individual interests often create echo chambers where only similar views appear repeatedly. Furthermore, in many social media platforms, AI-based recommendation algorithms determine the order and frequency of displayed posts, increasing the risk of users being exposed to a narrow scope of information.
Even so, I believe counter-speech is the most effective way to address these biases on social media. The key strength of the marketplace of ideas lies not in entrusting a conclusion (namely, the truthfulness of information) to the outcome of debate, but in ensuring that the debate itself continues. In other words, it preserves ongoing dialogue where diverse ideas are continuously expressed.
Meta’s policy shift―focusing on creating an environment where users make their own decisions rather than positioning the platform as the “arbiter of truth”―can be considered a preferable approach in terms of free expression. Democracy thrives on individual judgment and the information environment that sustains it.
* The information contained herein is current as of February 2025.
* The contents of articles on Meiji.net are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.
* I work to achieve SDGs related to the educational and research themes that I am currently engaged in.
Information noted in the articles and videos, such as positions and affiliations, are current at the time of production.