Community Notes: Passing the Buck While Keeping the Profits

What happens when the world’s largest media empires pretend they’re neutral platforms?
We lose control over the very foundation of democracy. When (media and tech) executives, like Mark Zuckerberg with Meta, decide to replace self-regulated moderation on their media platforms with "community notes"—an army of more or less competent members of the "community" tasked with policing content—it’s worth asking: Are we trading one flawed system for something better, or are we making things worse? Are we even tackling the right problem?

Let's be clear: Moderation on platforms like Meta and X (formerly Twitter) has been a mess. Think about it—censoring artistic nudes while allowing inflammatory political content, or failing to address bigotry from both the "white supremacist" right and the "woke" left. But the real question is whether self-regulation by private companies is the right mechanism to govern what is fundamentally part of the commons in any democracy.

There is no democracy without well-functioning media, a healthy flow of information, and access to education for all citizens. Yet unmoderated or minimally curated platforms create only the illusion of freedom while enabling extremism, disinformation, and echo chambers to thrive. What's worse, Zuckerberg's opportunism in following Elon Musk's lead—outsourcing responsibility to "community governance"—doesn't solve these issues. It simply pushes the problem further down the road.

Let's not kid ourselves: Social media platforms are not neutral. They are crowd-sourced media companies that, for years, have managed to escape scrutiny by pretending they are merely "platforms." Now, by crowd-sourcing the moderation mechanism, they perpetuate the illusion of governance without accountability or quality control. Freedom to participate does not equal the ability to perform a critical function.

To draw a parallel: Open-source software projects thrive because participation is balanced with expertise. Sure, I could submit suggestions to the Linux kernel project, but no one would let me commit changes directly—and that's a good thing. Why? Because such systems require competence, oversight, and responsibility, not just openness.

Here's the problem:

Hands-off approaches like "community notes" don't lead to freedom; they lead to chaos. They allow the loudest and most extreme voices to dominate, while systemic disinformation reshapes reality under the radar. Just as harmful is unchecked, opaque moderation controlled by private companies—silencing voices arbitrarily and further eroding public trust.

We've seen better models. While these platforms continue to flounder, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel—there are governance models around the world that demonstrate how to strike the right balance. The Scandinavian countries offer a compelling alternative through their "media welfare state" model, which balances universal access, editorial freedom, and cultural policy with durable, consensual solutions. Their approach demonstrates how democratic societies can maintain high press freedom while ensuring media serves the public good. Similarly, countries like France and Germany have established robust regulatory frameworks that prevent concentration of media control while protecting editorial independence.

The Baltic states are leading with innovative media literacy programs and disinformation resilience measures that could transform how platforms approach content moderation. Instead of relying on arbitrary "community notes," these countries have shown how to build systematic resilience against disinformation through a combination of user education and institutional oversight. Their comprehensive approach includes teaching citizens to identify manipulation while simultaneously requiring platforms to maintain transparent ownership structures and clear accountability measures. This dual focus on both individual literacy and institutional responsibility offers a blueprint for how platforms could evolve beyond simplistic crowdsourced moderation.

The Solutions:

We need a comprehensive approach that draws on these proven models while adapting them to the digital age. First, we need clear separation between ownership and editorial policy in these platforms, similar to how Scandinavian countries protect editorial freedom. Second, we need regulation of platform ownership by special interests, taking cues from countries like France and Germany that have strong measures against media concentration. To be clear these are very imperfect, but they are far better than nothing.

The governance structure itself needs reform, potentially borrowing from foundation-based models. By transitioning governance to independent foundations with public oversight, platforms could ensure that their operations align with democratic values and the public interest, rather than short-term profit motives. Such structures are used by companies like Rolex, Victorinox, and Patagonia to preserve their long-term missions. This could be combined with the kind of consensual policymaking that has proven successful in the Nordic media welfare state model. Social media companies could adopt this structure to serve their mission while preserving the commons of healthy information flows.

Finally, we need democratically controlled institutions to oversee these frameworks, similar to Britain's Ofcom or France's ARCOM, but updated for the digital age. These institutions must balance necessary regulation with industry self-regulation, ensuring transparency and accountability while protecting editorial independence.

The media commons is not a playground for opportunists or extremists—it’s the foundation of democracy. While the challenges are immense, the solutions exist. But these solutions require bold action: transitioning platforms to foundation-based governance, enforcing transparency through democratically controlled institutions, and adopting the lessons of media governance from around the world.

The question is, will we act in time to preserve the commons of healthy information flows, or let the illusion of freedom erode democracy itself?