Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#71

Post by oliviergg »

mongol wrote: post #61
oliviergg wrote: post #54

Zuck claims "Europe has an ever increasing number of laws,institutionalizing censorship and making difficult to build something innovative" Ouch. As a European, I feel very wary of such a sentence and the implications. Time for Europe to wake up ? (edit: fix typos)

We are awake. We should decouple ourselves from the tech giants on the other side of the pond. They don't have our best interests in mind.

I'm not sure that we are awake. As a dev for a long time, I realized only 6 months ago, that all the tools I use daily are directly from US. My job and my life would be very very different without this technology. We are loosing ground, or more, we are falling down more and more quickly.

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#73

Post by incomingpain »

macNchz wrote: post #60
incomingpain wrote: post #27

>Ending Third Party Fact Checking Program, Moving to Community Notes CNotes were extremely successful on X. The problem with censorship, why digg and reddit died as platforms, you end up with second order consequences. The anti-free speech people will always deeply analyze their opponent's speech to find a violation of the rules. They try to make rules that sound reasonable but are beyond section 230. No being anti-L…

> CNotes were extremely successful on X. > reddit died By all measures I can find, reddit continues to grow year over year, while X seems to have been flat or in decline, so I’m not sure this is a strong premise.

Facebook is #1, followed by youtube.

Tiktok is 4th.

Linkedin is 8th.

X is 12th.

Reddit is 16th.

Reddit fell a great deal in rankings. They mostly use bots to make it appear like they are still relevant. Which ironically is creating a 'dead internet' conspiracy theory. In reality its just 'dead reddit'

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#74

Post by miltonlost »

rayiner wrote: post #48
philjohn wrote: post #22

They've also said there will be more harmful (but legal) content on there as they'll no longer automatically look for it, but require it to be reported before taking action. As someone who worked on harmful content, specifically suicide and self injury, this is just nuts - they were raked over the coals in both the UK by an inquest into the suicide of a teenage user who rabbit holed on this harmful content, and also…

[flagged]

Showing pictures of suicide is "open discourse" now? That's what you're defending?

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#75

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #64
philwelch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like complying with government censorship demands was about currying favor with the outgoing administration.

Like this! https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru... > When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.

[deleted]

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#76

Post by BryantD »

philjohn wrote: post #69
BryantD wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly mirrors my thoughts, although I don't work in your field. One quote: "For example, in December 2024, we removed millions of pieces of content every day. While these actions account for less than 1% of content produced every day, we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes (i.e., the content may not have actually violated our policies)." That is first order data and it's in…

Indeed. The human cost of a piece of content being taken down depends on the piece of content, and the reason behind posting it. In the case of someone posting about recovery from self injury and including a photo of their healed self-harm scars, having that taken down by mistake would be more harmful than someone who posted a cartoon depiction of suicide for the lolz.

Yes.

My personal belief, for whatever that's worth, is that communication and speech are one of the most powerful tools any of us have. Talking can change minds, move societies, arouse emotions, and in general makes a difference. This is true no matter the format (text, voice, etc.).

That means that restricting communication should not be a casual activity. Free speech is a good ideal for a reason.

It also means that, if you believe in the primacy of free speech, you are obligated to consider the implications of that belief. Speech has effects. In my adult life, since 1990, we have seen a major change in the ease of communication. IMHO, society hasn't been able to fully adjust to that change -- or rather, that huge suite of changes. I sincerely do not know what a healthy society using the Internet looks like; I don't think we're in one now. All of these arguments (on all sides, mine included) are hampered by our lack of perspective.

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#77

Post by lapcat »

dmazin wrote: post #38

As a leftist, while this is concerning, it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. So, while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith (what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?), this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.

> this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion.

If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza, don't count on it, because this censorship is bipartisan in the United States.

Zuck cares about currying favor with the powerful. He doesn't give a crap about the powerless. Also, he's pretending that Texas, the proposed site for content moderation, is not politically biased, which is laughable. "We're moving from a blue state to a red state" is not a serious proposal for reducing or eliminating bias.

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#78

Post by spencerflem »

bhouston wrote: post #30

Zuckerberg knows which way the winds are blowing in the US Capital and is ensuring he is aligned with them so to avoid political blowback on his company. I suspect the changes to the fact checking / free speech will align with Trump's political whims. Thus fact checking will be gone on topics like vaccines, trans people, threats from immigrants, etc. While the well documented political censorship at Meta affecting Pa…

People down voting this are being silly.

Here's the topics the announcement mentioned:

"We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate."

Palestine is completely absent.

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#79

Post by bavell »

leovingi wrote: post #49
hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen a single discussion be worse off due to fact checking, but I've seen tons of discussions where having it would improve things. I have seen people get mad because they can't post BS without it being challenged. To claim internet discussion worked better without fact checking is something I haven't seen any actual evidence for, just opinions like yours. Community notes is just a watered down, more easily…

> I haven't seen a single discussion be worse off due to fact checking The idea that there is some official governing body that has access to undisputable facts and they have the power to designate what you or I or anyone else can talk about is preposterous and, frankly, anyone on a site called Hacker News should be ashamed for supporting it.

A voice of sanity in a cacophony of madness. I hold no sympathy for Meta but it's laughable that so-called "fact-checkers" are anything but "status-quo enforcers".

Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model

#80

Post by philjohn »

BryantD wrote: post #76
philjohn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The human cost of a piece of content being taken down depends on the piece of content, and the reason behind posting it. In the case of someone posting about recovery from self injury and including a photo of their healed self-harm scars, having that taken down by mistake would be more harmful than someone who posted a cartoon depiction of suicide for the lolz.

Yes. My personal belief, for whatever that's worth, is that communication and speech are one of the most powerful tools any of us have. Talking can change minds, move societies, arouse emotions, and in general makes a difference. This is true no matter the format (text, voice, etc.). That means that restricting communication should not be a casual activity. Free speech is a good ideal for a reason. It also means that…

Which is why we should research this carefully - and the research thus far points to consumption or graphic or even borderline depictions of suicide, self injury and eating disorder content (eg thinspo) being bad for mental health in at least teens.

Meta seem to be making the case for those who would see social media banned for people under the age of 18. To enforce that properly would require needing ID, and that then opens a whole can of civil liberty issues.

Post reply on HN