AI 中文总结
本文通过对X平台Community Notes系统的准实验研究，发现社区纠错对被纠错账号有不同后续影响，可约束单个误导性帖子但无法改善高占比多次被纠错账号的行为，二者是平台设计的不同目标。
AI 中文摘要
基于社区的事实核查可减少带标注的误导性帖子的传播，但它是否能让被纠错作者产生持久的行为改变仍不明确。本文对X（原Twitter）上的Community Notes系统开展大规模准实验研究，追踪19854个账号、57935次纠错（带标注的帖子及匹配对照）在标注展示前后四周的活动，覆盖11909591条原创帖子。双重差分估计显示，标注展示后，被纠错账号的原创帖子活动平均增加2.9%。这一总体结果掩盖了两条不同轨迹：仅被纠错一次的账号活动减少2.4%，之后发布的内容毒性和误导性降低；被多次纠错的账号占被纠错账号的28.6%，却产生73.4%的经事实核查的帖子，其首次纠错后活动增加4.4%，对后续纠错无明显反应，且无相应的内容改进，反而发布更多高度误导性帖子、引用质量更低的域名、发布更多政治内容。因此，Community Notes可约束单个误导性帖子，但无法持久改善最应负责的账号的行为，表明纠正内容和改变内容生产者是平台设计的不同目标。
英文摘要
Community-based fact-checking can reduce the spread of annotated misleading posts, but whether it produces lasting behavioral change among corrected authors remains unclear. Here, we conduct a large-scale quasi-experimental study of the Community Notes system on X (formerly Twitter), tracking four weeks of activity before and after note display for 19,854 accounts and 57,935 corrections (noted posts and matched controls), covering 11,909,591 original posts. Difference-in-Differences estimates show that note display is followed by an average 2.9% increase in corrected accounts' original-post activity. This aggregate conceals two divergent trajectories. Accounts corrected only once reduce their activity by 2.4% and subsequently publish less toxic and less misleading content. Repeatedly corrected accounts, which constitute 28.6% of corrected accounts but produce 73.4% of fact-checked posts, instead increase their activity by 4.4% after their first correction and show no detectable response to later ones. They exhibit no comparable content improvement, and instead publish more highly misleading posts, cite lower-quality domains, and post more political content. Community notes can thus constrain individual misleading posts without durably improving the behavior of the accounts most responsible for them, indicating that correcting content and changing its producers are distinct objectives for platform design.
