Content ratings fact-checkers use

Content that has no basis in fact. This includes:

• Fake quotes.

• Claims that are impossible, or that could not be considered an interpretation of something that actually happened or was said

  • Ex: claim that a natural disaster took place, when no such event happened

  • Ex: claim that an individual created or patented something when they did not

• Conspiracy theories that explain events as the secret work of individuals or groups, which may cite true or unverifiable information but present an implausible conclusion

  • Ex: claim a company is secretly engaged in drug trafficking based on an unrelated issue of charging high prices

  • Ex: claim without evidence that government insiders are directly responsible for a terror attack to provide a pretext for going to war

• Fabricated content from websites misrepresenting themselves as real news outlets.

• Image, audio or video content that’s authentic but offered as proof of an unrelated event.

  • Ex: authentic photo claiming to show no damage in a town after an incident, but that actually was taken before the incident

  • Ex: authentic video claiming to show one person confessing to a crime, but that actually is of another person

  • Ex: presenting an authentic but old government ordinance as if it were current, when a new ordinance contradicts the old

Image, audio, or video content that has been edited or synthesized beyond adjustments for clarity or quality, in ways that could mislead people about something that has no basis in fact. This includes media that is digitally created or edited through the use of artificial intelligence (AI). It also includes splicing media together, but not media excerpts (see ‘missing context’ rating), presenting media in a false context (see ‘false’ rating), or media where the digital creation or editing method is not itself misleading but the media includes a false claim (see ‘false’ rating). This does not include media with transparency using one of Meta’s AI labels or Meta’s AI watermarks or non-Meta transparency methods that clearly convey the use of AI, though a post may be eligible for another rating if it includes a claim separate from the use of digitally created or edited media. This definition includes:

• Manipulated or transformed audio, video, or photos.

  • Ex: changing the speed of a video to misleadingly alter the speech qualities of the speaker

  • Ex: adding an image into an authentic photo to present the appearance of something that actually never happened

• Synthetic image, audio, or video, including media created using artificial intelligence:

  • Ex: A photorealistic image depicting an event that did not occur.

  • Ex: A video depicting someone saying or doing something they did not say or do.

• Media edited to omit or reorder the words someone said to reverse the meaning of the statement

  • Ex: removing the word “not” from someone saying “I will not do X.”

Content has some factual inaccuracies. This includes:

• Inaccuracies or miscalculations regarding numbers, dates, times, but that could be considered an interpretation of something that actually happened or was said.

  • Ex: misstating the number of people registered for or attending an event

  • Ex: miscalculating the cost of a government program

• A mix of true and false key claims, where the false claims do not predominate

  • Ex: a list of several claims, some of which are true and some of which are false

  • Ex: a video that contains many key claims, some true, some false

• Content presented as an opinion but based on underlying false information

  • Ex: advocating for a policy change supported by several key claims, one of which is provably false

Content that implies a false claim without directly stating it. This includes:

• Clip or excerpt from authentic media that has not been altered (see Altered rating definition) or presented in a false context (see False rating definition), but distorts the meaning of the original content to imply a false claim. This does not include clips of authentic politician speech (e.g., text quotes, video clip) (see Politician definition).

  • Ex: an unaltered video clip of a group chanting that they’re peacefully protesting, but the fuller version of the video shows that same group instigating violence

  • Ex: pairing together authentic text excerpts of someone’s speech that changes but does not reverse the meaning of what they actually said

• Reporting on a false claim made by a third-party without questioning its veracity (read more about our guidelines on reporting false claims that were made elsewhere).

  • Ex: a TV host airs an interview with a source who makes a provably false assertion, and the host doesn’t affirm or question the veracity of the claim

• Use of data or statistics that implies a false conclusion.

  • Ex: selectively using data from a study to imply a conclusion not made by the study

  • Ex: highlighting correlated data to imply a causal effect that is verifiably false

Content that uses irony, exaggeration, or absurdity for criticism or awareness, particularly in the context of political, religious, or social issues, but that a reasonable user would not immediately understand to be satirical. This may be from sites not clearly labeled as or widely-known as satire, or presented without clear labeling. Content rated as Satire will include fact-checkers’ articles for more context.

Content that contains no inaccurate or misleading information.