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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by davidw »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #315
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…

> "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 FB office in Austin, Texas is a moderately left-leaning area. Their office in Silicon Valley is about the most extreme left-wing place in the country. At the v…

It's not about actual employees, it's about signalling "Texas - yay!" and "California - booooo!" in order to make good with the incoming administration.

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

#322

Post by insane_dreamer »

The fact-checking that Meta is ending, which put "misinformation" disclaimers on posts, is NOT the same as content moderation, which will continue.

A lot of comments in this thread reflect a conflation of these two, with stuff like "great! no more censorship!" or "I was once banned because I made a joke on my IG post", which don't relate to fact-checking.

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

#323

Post by insane_dreamer »

in_cahoots wrote: post #305
kamikazeturtles wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, Facebook has 2.1 billion daily active users. I primarily use the app for its Marketplace feature as an alternative to Craigslist.

Doesn’t the second sentence explain the first? I can’t tell the number of times I’ve heard a variation of, “I hate Facebook [newsfeed]. I only use it for Messenger/ niche Groups/ local events/ Marketplace.” Facebook has positioned itself so that it’s almost a necessity if you want to be involved in your community, however you define it. You may hate Zuck, moderation, and ‘the algo’ and yet you can’t get away from Met…

> it’s almost a necessity if you want to be involved in your community

not really; I haven't had a FB account in 10 years

I use Craigslist for local ads.

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

#324

Post by ok_dad »

JohnMakin wrote: post #183

I'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…

> "acoustic" to refer to an autistic person

Is autistic an illegal word or something? What the fuck?

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

#325

Post by CobrastanJorji »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #301
JohnMakin wrote: post #183

I'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…

The only people that would say this is unnecessary are the people that not currently being censored, and have no concept that they ever would be. Because they’re the Good People that think the Good Things.

You're all very likely correct, but given the timing, it's hard to assume good intent on Meta's part. This same week, they've "donated" $1 million to Trump's "inauguration fund," and added strong Trump ally to Meta's board. Significant changes to moderation might be good or might be bad, but given the other news, only the truly ingenuous would trust that it's intended to improve things.

Same thing with when Bezos declared that the Washington Post would no longer be endorsing presidential candidates, claiming that it was a neutral decision about returning the paper to its roots with unfortunate but coincidental timing. Despite that potentially being a reasonable decision in a vacuum, only an idiot would have believed that Bezos was being honest about his motivation.

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

dmd wrote: post #218
circlingthesun wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once posted a picture of an email stating my train was delayed in French. So the word 'retard' appeared in it. Instagram banned me from monetization or partnerships or something on my account, because the word for delay in French is offensive in English.

Pilots flying an Airbus get called a “retard” every time they land!

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by radlad »

jfengel wrote: post #198
phatfish wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cou…

> 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.

Downvotes that hide posts below a certain threshold have always seemed like the best approach to me. Of course it also allows groups to silence views.

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

#328

Post by hcurtiss »

stronglikedan wrote: post #309
tshaddox wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the word for delay in French is offensive in English It's also the word for delay in English.

It's also not offensive in English, even though some virtue signalers insist on taking offense to it.

Right. I made a reference to educational development being retarded due to COVID restrictions and the very people you'd expect to be offended were of course offended.

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

#329

Post by ben_w »

tshaddox wrote: post #297
circlingthesun wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once posted a picture of an email stating my train was delayed in French. So the word 'retard' appeared in it. Instagram banned me from monetization or partnerships or something on my account, because the word for delay in French is offensive in English.

> because the word for delay in French is offensive in English It's also the word for delay in English.

I've only ever seen it used to mean "delay" in occasional technical contexts, e.g. "fire retardant material", in practice it seems to be mostly a noun that means "stupid person".
Post reply on HN