Last month, Facebook announced that it would exempt political advertising from the fact-checking standards imposed on the rest of its platform. The move was controversial. More than ever before, social media users are finding ways to debunk disinformation, yet the volume of inaccuracies and outright falsehoods never seems to diminish, thanks in large part to Donald Trump. How did we get here? And what are the best practices for fact-checking in the chaotic news environment we’re living in? Is fact-checking working at all to correct people’s impressions of misinformation? To explore these and other related questions, CJR convened a virtual symposium on Galley, discussion app, with some experts in the fact-checking field.

Jonathan Albright, who runs the Digital Forensic Research unit at Columbia’s Tow Center, says that his research shows that many of the same disinformation strategies from the 2016 election—aimed at reinforcing polarization and institutional distrust—are being leveraged this time around, too. As before, the focus is on religion, immigration, health, and climate change. When it comes to political advertising, Albright says, fact-checking wouldn’t be sufficient to confront the scope of the problem—even if Facebook did allow for it. “We need a [Federal Election Commission]-style portal on how citizen data is used in political campaigns, not separate platform political ad APIs,” he argues. Baybars Örsek, of the International Fact-Checking Network, says that Facebook’s decision not to fact-check political ads is a mistake: “I think fact-checkers should be able to flag not only political advertisements but also political claims and statements on Facebook.”

Rampant disinformation may seem like a modern crisis, but Kelly Weill, of The Daily Beast, points out that “the US is a country that’s always held conspiratorial thinking close to its heart. The signers of the Declaration of Independence believed a number of falsehoods about plots by King George III against America.” Conspiratorial thinking often comes with new communication methods, Weill adds: the Flat Earth movement got its start in the United Kingdom in the mid-1840s, when newspapers became widely available. Renee DiResta, of the Stanford Internet Observatory, says that disinformation is “a chronic condition, and we’re now in the process of figuring out the best way to manage it.” What we need to do, she believes, is develop a much deeper understanding of how and when people internalize the messages they receive, “particularly in an era in which they’re barraged with messages and attention-grabbing content every time they pick up their phone.”

ICYMI: Everyone is admitting what they get paid to work in journalism

Maarten Schenk, who runs a debunking site called Lead Stories, says that, over the past year or so, disinformation has evolved. “Operations are becoming larger and more complex, with widespread use of fake or stolen accounts to spread links around, often coming from dozens of websites that are all part of the same network,” he observes. Paradoxically, the changes indicate that countermeasures implemented by Facebook and others are working, he argues. “Creating a fake Facebook account is much more difficult these days, for example, with some of them getting caught within minutes for displaying non-human behavior.”

When Nathan Walter, a disinformation researcher at Northwestern University, analyzed whether fact-checking works or not, his team found evidence that it does in the sense that “people’s beliefs become more accurate and factually consistent” after seeing a fact-checking message. Yet Walter says that the benefits are minimal—even absent—when it comes to political campaign statements. And attempts to add relevant context, he adds, can actually make the problem worse. Alexios Mantzarlis, who ran the International Fact-Checking Network for several years before moving to the Google News Lab, says that in the time he led the IFCN, “We went from not thinking about it enough to hoping it could be a silver bullet and ultimately to fighting among ourselves because it didn’t stand up to those expectations.”

Sign up for CJR 's daily email

Brooke Binkowski, a former managing editor at Snopes.com who now works for a fact-checking site called Truth or Fiction, says that fact-checking journalists confronting the scale of misinformation on social media need to adopt an aggressive stance. “You have to be prepared to stand up for the truth and defend it, in this Disinformation Age,” she says. “This isn’t ‘view from nowhere” journalism—you have to be willing and prepared to get into peoples’’ faces a bit, to tell them they’re wrong, to point your finger at them in the public square and say, ‘Look. This is a lie, and here is the liar who is spreading it.”

Here’s more on disinformation and the challenges of fact-checking:

Non-responsive : David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, talks in a Galley interview about why his site quit working with Facebook. “We impressed upon Facebook after our last agreement with them expired at the end of 2018 that we needed them to address some issues before we could renew, and they were completely non-responsive,” he says . “It did not make sense for us as an organization to continue expending resources to benefit a platform that seemed unconcerned about the welfare of their partners or about making sincere efforts to improve.”

A precious thing : Angie Drobnic Holan, editor of PolitiFact at Poynter, says that she tries not to get disillusioned about whether fact-checking is having an impact or not. “My goal is to keep alive factual analysis and evidence-based methods, so they’re not lost from the world,” she explains . “We all need help to see the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be. I fact-check because I think the truth in and of itself is a precious thing that needs to be valued and defended.”

Infectious info : Researchers at Stanford University are tracking the spread of viral disinformation using tools designed to track infectious diseases like Ebola. One of the researchers says he isn’t concerned about large fake news events, but about a “death by a thousand cuts” that erodes democracy “slowly and over time, so that we don’t recognize the gravity of what’s going on until perhaps it’s too late.”

Other notable stories:

ICYMI: The New York Times’ obsession with Trump, quantified

Has America ever needed a media watchdog more than now? Help us by joining CJR today

Mathew Ingram is CJR’s chief digital writer. Previously, he was a senior writer with Fortune magazine. He has written about the intersection between media and technology since the earliest days of the commercial internet. His writing has been published in the Washington Post and the Financial Times as well as by Reuters and Bloomberg.