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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by aklemm »

saxonww wrote: post #4

What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represent…

What I heard is that trying to maintain sane content is less profitable than the alternative, and definitely less politically advantageous.

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

#192

Post by tptacek »

I'd like to hear an informed take from anybody who thinks that Facebook's fact-checkers were a better product feature than Community Notes.

All of the articles I'm seeing about this online are ideological, but this feels like the kind of decision that should have been in the works for multiple quarters now, given how effective Notes have been, and how comically ineffective and off-putting fact-checkers have been. The user experience of fact-checkers (forget about people pushing bogus facts, I just mean for ordinary people who primarily consume content rather than producing it) is roughly that of a PSA ad spot series saying "this platform is full of junk, be on your guard".

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

#193

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

nailer wrote: post #126
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.

[flagged]

> people just do not wish to participate in other peoples gender performances.

The “bad faith” is in the pretending that we don’t all participate in gender performance with every single person we come into contact with, every single day, for our entire lives.

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

#194

Post by theptip »

aurareturn wrote: post #104

I speculated what Zuckerberg wanted and what he'd do when he visited Mar-a-lago[0]: * Push to ban Tiktok * Drop antitrust lawsuits against Meta * Meta will relax "conservative" posts on its platforms * Zuckerberg will donate to Trump's cause So far, Zuckerberg has already donated to Trump's cause. Now he has relaxed "conservative" posts on its platforms directly or indirectly. When Trump comes into power, he'll likel…

Also, Zuck appointed Dana White to the board: https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/dana-white-john-elkann-cha...

So they have also given a board seat to a friend of Trump.

But yeah, I think you're right that there is clearly some combination of dealmaking and bending the knee going on.

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

#196

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

lazyeye wrote: post #182
yodsanklai wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't explicit about it, but it's clear that pressure does not exist anymore It's clear that the pressure comes now from the other side of the spectrum. Zuck already put Trumpists at various key positions. > I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. It's…

Is it less concerning if Facebook only worked with one side of politics? How is reducing censorship a bad thing?

Who said anything about that?

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

#197

Post by kristianc »

qingcharles wrote: post #179
saxonww wrote: post #4

What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represent…

Community Notes is the best thing about Musk's Dumpster fire. The problem with CN right now, though, is that Musk appears to block it on most of his posts, and/or right-wing moderators downvote the notes so they don't appear or disappear.

The bad faith “NNN - just expressing an opinion” is a cancer on CNs too.

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

#198

Post by jfengel »

phatfish wrote: post #20
saxonww wrote: post #4

What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represent…

> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. Or maybe such people have far better things to do than fact check concern trolls and paid propagandists.

There do seem to be a lot of people who enjoy fact checking concern trolls and paid propagandists.

I'm not sure if they do more good than harm. Often the entire point seems to be to get those specific people spun up, realizing that the troll is not constrained to admit error no matter how airtight the refutation. It just makes them look as frothing as trolls claim they are.

And yet, it's also unclear if any other course of action would help. Despite decades of pleading, the trolls never starve no matter how little they're fed.

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

#199

Post by josefritzishere »

tptacek wrote: post #192

I'd like to hear an informed take from anybody who thinks that Facebook's fact-checkers were a better product feature than Community Notes. All of the articles I'm seeing about this online are ideological, but this feels like the kind of decision that should have been in the works for multiple quarters now, given how effective Notes have been, and how comically ineffective and off-putting fact-checkers have been. The…

Generally fb has trended to worse rather than better. I already passed my personal tipping point years ago and quit fb.

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

#200

Post by freedomben »

hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #145
kcplate wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous. Seems to me in my experience after decades…

>Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous. Fact checkers don't suppress information,…

> Fact checkers don't suppress information,

I think some moderation is important, but misrepresenting fact checkers (damn ironic actually) doesn't serve us. Of course fact check suppresses information! That's the whole point. Sometimes it results in straight up deletion, but even when not it results in lowered reach aka suppression of what the algorithm would normally allow to trend, etc.

Post reply on HN