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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by hintymad »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #174
hintymad wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content moderators judge content subjectively, labeling perfect discussions as misinformation, hate speech, and etc. That's where the censorship starts.

How do you avoid judging actual human discussions subjectively? I remember being a forum moderator and struggling with exactly the same issues. No matter what guidelines we'd set, there'd be essentially legitimate discussions that were way over the line superficially, and on the other you'd have neo-nazis acting in ways that weren't technically bad, but were clearly leading there. Facebook moderators have an even har…

My answer is don't. If something is subjective, then why bother? "Words are violence" is such a bullshit.

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

#222

Post by dotancohen »

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.
To me it sounds better for large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion, like Qatar. I disagree that this is better for either Facebook users, or society as a whole.

It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.

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

#223

Post by philjohn »

Dig1t wrote: post #128
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…

“Think of the children” isn’t really a good argument for censoring completely legal political discourse, which is what has been happening. They are admitting that there has been a global push against free speech on these platforms. >There is research that shows exposure to suicide and self injury content increases suicidal ideation. I mean do you really need research to show this link? Of course it does. We are okay…

Automatically demoting, not recommending and adding "mark as disturbing" screens is what's going away - which is akin to the "R" rating.

But at this point, I'm siding with the "no social media for adolescents" people more and more.

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

#224

Post by philjohn »

dado3212 wrote: post #141
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…

> So, we’re going to continue to focus these systems on tackling illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams. I don't think this is exhaustive, and I think SSI (suicide/self-injury) + ED/etc. stuff is considered high-severity.

Fingers crossed.

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

#226

Post by autoexec »

> Once the program is up and running, Meta won’t write Community Notes or decide which ones show up. They are written and rated by contributing users.

Sure "Meta" won't, but I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of "contributing users" end up being facebook's AI accounts

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

#228

Post by davidw »

tptacek wrote: post #217
davidw wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideological bits are: * Dana White added to the board. * "Move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California, and our US content review to Texas. This will help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content." - like people being in Texas makes them more objective?! The actual mechanisms of running a social media network at scale are tricky and I think most of us would…

I get how the partisan story is easy to tell here, but I'm saying something pretty specific: I think it would have been product development malpractice for this decision not to have been in the works for many, many months, long before the GOP takeover of the federal government was a safe bet. Community Notes has been that successful, and Facebook's fact-checkers have been that much of a product disaster. I've never s…

As a product decision taken independently, maybe. Running one of those things at scale with all kinds of people trying to subvert it for various reasons, including some downright evil ones, is not an easy task.

Announced together with everything else and given the timing, I just can't help but think there's a political component to all of it.

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

#229

Post by [deleted] »

nailer wrote: post #124
donohoe wrote: post #2

From bad to worse. Meta is probably one of the single largest funders of fact checking. Now that appears to be coming to an end. Third parties will no longer be able to flag misinfo on FB, Instagram or Threads in the US. This is not good imho.

Thank God. Fact checkers and political organisations pretending to fact check frequently spread false information. Aside from the 2020 election interference regarding the Hunter Biden laptop (which was falsely claimed to be a Russian disinformation effort), you can visit Snopes right now and read an article on how someone that blew up people (and now works for BLM) may not be a terrorist because ‘there are many diffe…

[deleted]

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

#230

Post by autoexec »

WalterBright wrote: post #207
ziddoap wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-American here (i.e. did not watch the debate), what trouble became evident? Were they fact-checking too much? Not enough? Incorrectly?

Only one side was fact checked.

Was it the side that did the vast majority of the lying?
Post reply on HN