News
Meta shift from fact-checking to crowdsourcing spotlights competing approaches in fight against misinformation and hate speech
Anjana Susarla, Michigan State University
Meta’s decision to change its content moderation policies by replacing centralized fact-checking teams with user-generated community labeling has stirred up a storm of reactions. But taken at face value, the changes raise the question of the effectiveness of Meta’s old policy, fact-checking, and its new one, community comments.
With billions of people worldwide accessing their services, platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram have a responsibility to ensure that users are not harmed by consumer fraud, hate speech, misinformation or other online ills. Given the scale of this problem, combating online harms is a serious societal challenge. Content moderation plays a role in addressing these online harms.
Moderating content involves three steps. The first is scanning online content – typically, social media posts – to detect potentially harmful words or images. The second is assessing whether the flagged content violates the law or the platform’s terms of service. The third is intervening in some way. Interventions include removing posts, adding warning labels to posts, and diminishing how much a post can be seen or shared.
Content moderation can range from user-driven moderation models on community-based platforms such as Wikipedia to centralized content moderation models such as those used by Instagram. Research shows that both approaches are a mixed bag.
Does fact-checking work?
Meta’s previous content moderation policy relied on third-party fact-checking organizations, which brought problematic content to the attention of Meta staff. Meta’s U.S. fact-checking organizations were AFP USA, Check Your Fact, Factcheck.org, Lead Stories, PolitiFact, Science Feedback, Reuters Fact Check, TelevisaUnivision, The Dispatch and USA TODAY.
Fact-checking relies on impartial expert review. Research shows that it can reduce the effects of misinformation but is not a cure-all. Also, fact-checking’s effectiveness depends on whether users perceive the role of fact-checkers and the nature of fact-checking organizations as trustworthy.
Crowdsourced content moderation
In his announcement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg highlighted that content moderation at Meta would shift to a community notes model similar to X, formerly Twitter. X’s community notes is a crowdsourced fact-checking approach that allows users to write notes to inform others about potentially misleading posts.
Studies are mixed on the effectiveness of X-style content moderation efforts. A large-scale study found little evidence that the introduction of community notes significantly reduced engagement with misleading tweets on X. Rather, it appears that such crowd-based efforts might be too slow to effectively reduce engagement with misinformation in the early and most viral stage of its spread.
There have been some successes from quality certifications and badges on platforms. However, community-provided labels might not be effective in reducing engagement with misinformation, especially when they’re not accompanied by appropriate training about labeling for a platform’s users. Research also shows that X’s Community Notes is subject to partisan bias.
Crowdsourced initiatives such as the community-edited online reference Wikipedia depend on peer feedback and rely on having a robust system of contributors. As I have written before, a Wikipedia-style model needs strong mechanisms of community governance to ensure that individual volunteers follow consistent guidelines when they authenticate and fact-check posts. People could game the system in a coordinated manner and up-vote interesting and compelling but unverified content. https://www.youtube.com/embed/HsV6DHmC8UA?wmode=transparent&start=0 Misinformation researcher Renée DiResta analyzes Meta’s change in content moderation policy.
Content moderation and consumer harms
A safe and trustworthy online space is akin to a public good, but without motivated people willing to invest effort for the greater common good, the overall user experience could suffer.
Algorithms on social media platforms aim to maximize engagement. However, given that policies that encourage engagement can also result in harm, content moderation also plays a role in consumer safety and product liability.
This aspect of content moderation has implications for businesses that either use Meta for advertising or to connect with their consumers. Content moderation is also a brand safety issue because platforms have to balance their desire to keep the social media environment safer against that of greater engagement.
AI content everywhere
Content moderation is likely to be further strained by growing amounts of content generated by artificial intelligence tools. AI detection tools are flawed, and developments in generative AI are challenging people’s ability to differentiate between human-generated and AI-generated content.
In January 2023, for example, OpenAI launched a classifier that was supposed to differentiate between texts generated by humans and those generated by AI. However, the company discontinued the tool in July 2023 due to its low accuracy.
There is potential for a flood of inauthentic accounts – AI bots – that exploit algorithmic and human vulnerabilities to monetize false and harmful content. For example, they could commit fraud and manipulate opinions for economic or political gain.
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT make it easier to create large volumes of realistic-looking social media profiles and content. AI-generated content primed for engagement can also exhibit significant biases, such as race and gender. In fact, Meta faced a backlash for its own AI-generated profiles, with commentators labeling it “AI-generated slop.”
More than moderation
Regardless of the type of content moderation, the practice alone is not effective at reducing belief in misinformation or at limiting its spread.
Ultimately, research shows that a combination of fact-checking approaches in tandem with audits of platforms and partnerships with researchers and citizen activists are important in ensuring safe and trustworthy community spaces on social media.
Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Economy
Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?
Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.
Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.
But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.
That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.
What Is a Donor State?
Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.
Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.
A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.
These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.
Only Three Donor States in 2023?
According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.
Those states were:
New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.
Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.
Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.
At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.
The reality is considerably more complicated.
COVID Changed the Numbers
Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.
The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.
Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.
Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.
That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.
California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor
California provides perhaps the best example.
In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.
But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.
Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.
In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.
Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.
New York Tells a Similar Story
New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.
Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.
Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.
As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.
Arizona Is a Net Recipient
Arizona presents a different picture.
Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.
Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.
That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.
But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”
Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.
Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.
All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.
Texas Receives More Than It Sends
Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.
Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.
Again, the number needs context.
Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.
The Surprising Leader: Virginia
If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.
Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.
Why?
Location.
Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.
Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.
The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.
A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.
Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?
Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:
- Social Security
- Medicare and Medicaid
- Military bases and personnel
- Defense contracts
- Federal employee salaries
- Highway and transit funding
- Scientific and university research
- Agricultural programs
- Veterans benefits
- Disaster assistance
- Federal grants
- Infrastructure projects
- Federal agency operations
A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.
Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors
Federal income taxes are progressive.
People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.
States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.
That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.
The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.
The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.
In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.
So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?
In a broad accounting sense, yes.
Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.
But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.
Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.
A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.
Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.
The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.
The Bigger Picture
The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.
The numbers are real, but they require context.
A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.
Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:
Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.
They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.
And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.
Related External Links
- Rockefeller Institute of Government – 2025 Balance of Payments Report
- USAspending.gov – Explore Federal Government Spending
- USAspending.gov – Federal Spending Guide
- IRS – Individual Income Tax Data by State
- IRS – Federal Taxes Collected by State
🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Food Truths
The Truth About the “Chemical” in McDonald’s Burger Buns: Should Consumers Be Concerned?
What’s in the Burger Buns:The “yoga mat chemical” controversy changed how consumers view food additives. Here’s what azodicarbonamide is, why McDonald’s removed it, and what the science actually says.
For years, headlines and social media posts have warned consumers about a so-called “yoga mat chemical” found in hamburger buns served by major fast-food chains. The claims sparked widespread concern, prompted petitions, and eventually led several restaurant companies—including McDonald’s—to change their recipes.
But what was the chemical, and is there actually a health risk today?
What Was the Controversial Ingredient?
The ingredient at the center of the controversy was azodicarbonamide (ADA), a chemical used as a dough conditioner. It helped improve the texture of bread, making dough easier to handle and producing softer, more consistent buns.
Ironically, the same compound is also used in manufacturing certain foamed plastics, including some yoga mats and shoe soles. That connection gave rise to the viral nickname, “the yoga mat chemical.”
While the comparison was technically accurate, it also lacked important context. Food-grade azodicarbonamide and industrial applications are very different, and many chemicals have multiple uses across industries.
Why Did People Become Concerned?
The concern wasn’t simply that ADA was used in food. Scientists focused on what happens during baking.
When bread is baked, most azodicarbonamide breaks down into other compounds. Some laboratory studies involving animals raised questions about one of these breakdown products, called semicarbazide (SEM), when administered in high doses.
Those findings prompted some countries to take a more cautious regulatory approach.
Why Is It Banned in Some Countries?
The European Union and Canada do not permit azodicarbonamide as a flour treatment agent. Their food safety policies often follow the precautionary principle, removing ingredients when safer alternatives exist or when scientific uncertainty remains.
In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that azodicarbonamide is safe when used within approved limits.
These differing regulations don’t necessarily mean one side believes the ingredient is dangerous while the other believes it is harmless. Instead, they reflect different philosophies about regulating food additives.
Does McDonald’s Still Use It?
No.
McDonald’s removed azodicarbonamide from its U.S. hamburger buns in 2014 following growing consumer demand for simpler ingredient lists.
Today’s buns no longer contain the ingredient, joining a broader trend among food manufacturers to eliminate additives that have become controversial with consumers.
Are There Other Ingredients Consumers Should Know About?
Modern commercial bread still contains ingredients designed to improve freshness, texture, and shelf life.
These may include:
- Calcium propionate to prevent mold
- Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as a dough conditioner
- Enzymes that improve consistency
- Emulsifiers that help maintain softness
These ingredients have been evaluated by food safety agencies and are generally recognized as safe when used according to regulations.
The Bigger Health Picture
Nutrition experts generally agree that focusing on one ingredient can distract from the larger issue.
The greatest health risks associated with fast food are more closely linked to:
- High sodium intake
- Excess saturated fat
- Added sugars
- Large portion sizes
- Frequent consumption of ultra-processed foods
An occasional fast-food meal is unlikely to determine someone’s long-term health. Overall dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle factors have a much greater impact.
Consumer Awareness Is Changing the Food Industry
Whether or not an ingredient poses a measurable health risk, public concern can influence corporate decisions.
Over the past decade, many food companies have reformulated products to remove controversial ingredients, reduce artificial additives, and simplify ingredient labels. In many cases, those changes have been driven as much by consumer preferences as by regulatory requirements.
The Bottom Line
The “yoga mat chemical” story captured public attention because it combined science, food safety, and memorable marketing. While azodicarbonamide was once used in some hamburger buns, including those supplied to McDonald’s, the company removed it from its U.S. buns years ago.
Current evidence suggests consumers are better served by paying attention to their overall diet rather than worrying about a single ingredient that has already disappeared from many products.
Being an informed consumer means looking beyond the headlines, understanding the science, and recognizing that nutrition is about the complete picture—not just one ingredient.
Related External Links
- U.S. FDA – Food Additives & GRAS Ingredients Information for Consumers
- U.S. FDA – Food Additives and Petitions
- FDA – Azodicarbonamide (ADA) Food Substance Database
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations – 21 CFR §172.806 (Azodicarbonamide)
- FDA – Types of Food Ingredients and Why They’re Used
- Health Canada – Permitted Flour Treatment Agents
- McDonald’s USA – Nutrition Calculator & Ingredient Information
🍴 What’s your favorite food, recipe, or dining spot? Tell us in the comments! Then subscribe to the STM Daily News Food and Drink newsletter for fresh recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and delicious stories delivered straight to your inbox. Join our growing community of food lovers today!
STM Blog
Association of Black Cardiologists to Celebrate Legacy and Leadership at 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards
The Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) is bringing its signature celebration of impact back to New York City this fall—spotlighting leaders and organizations working to make cardiovascular care more equitable, more accessible, and more effective. The 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser is set for Saturday, October 3, 2026 (6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.) at Cipriani Wall Street in Manhattan.
For ABC, the evening is more than a high-profile awards program. It’s a cornerstone fundraising event that helps power the organization’s year-round work—supporting medical student scholarships, fellowships, education, and programs designed to strengthen the pipeline of diverse clinicians and researchers while improving outcomes in communities that carry a disproportionate burden of heart disease.
A fundraising night with long-term stakes
ABC leaders say the Spirit of the Heart Awards is built around a simple idea: celebrating progress while investing in the people who will drive the next wave of change.
Event co-chair Icilma Fergus, MD—Director of the Cardiovascular Disparities Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center and Board Chair of ABC—framed the night as a forward-looking commitment.
“This gathering is about more than one evening of celebration; it is about investing in the future of cardiovascular health for years to come,” Fergus said in the announcement. She added that the support generated through the event helps expand opportunities for aspiring clinicians, researchers, and leaders whose work can transform care and improve lives nationwide.
Honorary Chairperson: Samin K. Sharma, MD
ABC announced Samin K. Sharma, MD as the event’s Honorary Chairperson. Sharma serves as Chief of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Institute, and the Anandi Lal Sharma Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
In the release, ABC highlighted Sharma’s international reputation in interventional cardiology and physician education, noting that he has trained cardiovascular specialists from around the world while advancing the field through research, mentorship, and patient care.
“I am honored to serve as Honorary Chairperson for this important event,” Sharma said. “The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program reflects the power of partnership, philanthropy, and leadership to advance cardiovascular health.”
A full weekend of impact, including policy
The awards program is part of a broader weekend of programming. On Friday, October 2, ABC will host its Annual Policy Pulse Summit at Venable LLP in New York City, convening leaders to discuss policy issues shaping the future of cardiovascular health.
What to expect at the Spirit of the Heart Awards
ABC is positioning the evening as both a celebration and a community gathering—bringing together leaders from healthcare, philanthropy, industry, and advocacy.
The event will be co-emceed by:
- Sandra Bookman, award-winning journalist and anchor of Eyewitness News on ABC7/WABC-TV New York
- Thomas Cunningham IV, President and Chief Content Officer of BrandCunningham
The program is expected to include:
- Presentation of the Spirit of the Heart Awards
- Recognition of medical student scholarship recipients
- Special guest appearances
- A live auction
- Musical entertainment
Event co-chair Barbara Hutchinson, MD, PhD, President of Chesapeake Cardiac Care, emphasized the role of sustained collaboration in moving the needle on heart health.
“The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program is a reminder that lasting progress in cardiovascular health is achieved through vision, partnership, and sustained commitment,” Hutchinson said.
How to attend, sponsor, or support
ABC is directing attendees and supporters to its event site for tickets, sponsorship opportunities, and donations:
- Event info / tickets / sponsorship / donations: https://abcardioevents.org
About the Association of Black Cardiologists
Founded on the belief that “every heart counts,” the Association of Black Cardiologists works to promote prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and to advance health equity by eliminating disparities. ABC’s membership is open to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or vocation. The organization’s work spans education, advocacy, research, patient and community outreach, and leadership development.
- Organization website: https://abcardio.org
Source and media contact
- Press release source (PRNewswire): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/association-of-black-cardiologists-to-celebrate-legacy-and-leadership-at-16th-annual-spirit-of-the-heart-awards-302206000.html
Media Contact (from the release):
- Akeia Blue, VP of Communications
- 419395@email4pr.com
- 240-321-9227
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
