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.
[deleted]
Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#242I'm certain it will make parts of the user experience worse, but at least for the Threads app, this seems at least a little necessary - if you're aiming to be the "new" twitter or whatever social need twitter was fulfilling, you need to break free of the shackles of IG/Meta moderation, which is very unforgiving and brutal in very subtle ways that aren't always easy to figure out. But basically, I find a platform like…
A tale as old as time. On old forums and groups: h4xor, ghey, etc.
Clbuttic
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#244What 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…
The trouble with fact checkers was quite evident in the Trump-Harris debate.
As a Harris supporter, I actually agree, I think it was way too heavy handed and hurt Harris more than helped. I’m not sure anymore what the goal of fact checking is (I’ve always felt it was somewhat dubious if not done extremely well).
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#245I'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…
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…
[flagged]
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#246It's funny how facebook got so political all the normies left, then they downranked political content so much that the political people left too. Facebook is a ghost town now.
Do they still mandate using your legal name? That's the biggest no-go for me. It's just awful opsec.
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#247It's funny how facebook got so political all the normies left, then they downranked political content so much that the political people left too. Facebook is a ghost town now.
Surprisingly, Facebook has 2.1 billion daily active users. I primarily use the app for its Marketplace feature as an alternative to Craigslist.
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#248Earlier 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…
[flagged]
That's a housing problem. California is very NIMBY and doesn't build enough homes.
That has nothing to do with how 'objective' fact checking or content review or whatever is from people in both places.
This is just very thinly coded language signalling who they're going to favor.
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#249It's funny how facebook got so political all the normies left, then they downranked political content so much that the political people left too. Facebook is a ghost town now.
Going back even further, one of the initial draws of Instagram pre-acquisition was that you could escape the toxicity of trolls and other socially unproductive behavior on Facebook.
Meta has a big problem coming up. They'll get to the point where they won't be able to hide Facebook and Instagram's lackluster appeal. I suspect we'll start seeing advertisers peel away, followed by a few savvy investors first. Let's just hope this doesn't trigger a market-wide correction.
Re: Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model
#250Earlier 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…
I expect it was an easy bone to throw the incoming administration, which the tech world learned from v1 is placatable by giving them PR / sound bite wins.
To the broader concern, this feels like Facebook making their original sin again.
Namely defunding and destroying revenue for a task that takes money (fact checking) and then expecting a free, community-driven approach to replace it.
Turns out, hot takes for clicks are a lot cheaper than journalism.
In this case, where is the funding to support nuanced, accurate fact checking at scale from?
Because it sure seems like Facebook isn't going to pay.
> I've never seen a wrong Facebook fact-check
Did you mean to say Note here?