Misperceptions can run in two directions. Individuals can either believe false information or reject true information, with experimental work finding that debunking efforts are effective at correcting both forms of misperception. Yet despite the efficacy of true corrections, current debunking systems focus almost entirely on the correction of falsehoods, with professional fact-checkers publishing few true verdicts and crowdsourced systems like X's Community Notes program unable, by rule, to display notes verifying true claims. As a result, we do not have a clear understanding of the extent to which overall misperceptions are driven by doubting true information. To answer this question we first draw on a novel dataset of 47,899 queries to X's AI assistant which track users asking for verification on post content. Surprisingly, among questioned posts that received a true or false verdict, Grok judged nearly identical shares as either accurate or inaccurate. Of the questioned posts, more than 83\% were not flagged by Community Notes and only 3.3\% carried a displayed note. Among questioned posts judged accurate by Grok, nearly 90\% received no note at all while fewer than 2\% displayed a note flagging them as misleading. This discrepancy does not seem to have stemmed from a lack of effort, with contributors writing 2,981 notes verifying questioned posts despite there being no way for Community Notes to display them publicly. Alongside further exploration of these findings we discuss both the system- and code-level changes that would be required to effectively address this asymmetric correction paradigm.

翻译：暂无翻译