  Deploying links to fact-checking websites (so-called "snoping") is a common
intervention that can be used by social media users to refute misleading
claims. However, its real-world effect may be limited as it suffers from low
visibility and distrust towards professional fact-checkers. As a remedy,
Twitter launched its community-based fact-checking system Community Notes on
which fact-checks are carried out by actual Twitter users and directly shown on
the fact-checked tweets. Yet, an understanding of how fact-checking via
Community Notes differs from snoping is absent. In this study, we analyze
differences in how contributors to Community Notes and Snopers select their
targets when fact-checking social media posts. For this purpose, we analyze two
unique datasets from Twitter: (a) 25,912 community-created fact-checks from
Twitter's Community Notes platform; and (b) 52,505 "snopes" that debunk tweets
via fact-checking replies linking to professional fact-checking websites. We
find that Notes contributors and Snopers focus on different targets when
fact-checking social media content. For instance, Notes contributors tend to
fact-check posts from larger accounts with higher social influence and are
relatively less likely to endorse/emphasize the accuracy of not misleading
posts. Fact-checking targets of Notes contributors and Snopers rarely overlap;
however, those overlapping exhibit a high level of agreement in the
fact-checking assessment. Moreover, we demonstrate that Snopers fact-check
social media posts at a higher speed. Altogether, our findings imply that
different fact-checking approaches -- carried out on the same social media
platform -- can result in vastly different social media posts getting
fact-checked. This has important implications for future research on
misinformation, which should not rely on a single fact-checking approach when
compiling misinformation datasets.
