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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by londons_explore »

pests wrote: post #336
ok_dad wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "acoustic" to refer to an autistic person Is autistic an illegal word or something? What the fuck?

It’s self-censorship, some of which I find extremely weird and cringe. Go on Twitter and you will see people self-censor the normal swear words too. Shit becomes “sht”, fuck becomes “fck” Very dystopian.

X today seems to not let any posts about death, swearing, etc get recommended.

Whereas if you replace those words with "unalive" and **'s, then you get far more views.

I'm sure there is some kind of filter.

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

#352

Post by bpodgursky »

qingcharles wrote: post #186
theptip wrote: post #118

Community notes seems to be quite well received. I like that the algorithm seems to be public and (IIUC) tamper-evident. The obvious context is that either Meta gets out of the content moderation game voluntarily, or the incoming admin goes to war with them. > focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations. I imagine this will in practice determine how far they can go in the EU. Community notes, sur…

I really like Community Notes, and hate the rest of what Twitter has become. But... Community Notes is subject to "tampering." Elon's either removes the CNs himself from his posts, or his brigade downvote them to infinity so they don't appear on all the misinfo he posts.

I don't think "CEO is able to remove community notes" is a strong mark against the community note algorithm. No system is immune to being turned off...

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

#353

Post by pityJuke »

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.

The problem is that these platforms have to be built, and people have to willingly use them... which is hard, given Meta have built brilliant addiction machines.

The whole threat here is you can't regulate Meta away, because they'll use the US Government to bully you into not doing so. I'd imagine if the EU tried to publicly prop up a platform not making any profit, they'd do the same.

But yes, the only way is for this to happen. But either way, this was the scariest statement of the announcement(s).

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

#354

Post by JohnMakin »

pests wrote: post #336
ok_dad wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "acoustic" to refer to an autistic person Is autistic an illegal word or something? What the fuck?

It’s self-censorship, some of which I find extremely weird and cringe. Go on Twitter and you will see people self-censor the normal swear words too. Shit becomes “sht”, fuck becomes “fck” Very dystopian.

It's been trivially demonstrable that the use of "forbidden" terms or swearing can affect your ranking on their algorithms, whether it be displaying your comment, or your post on someone's feed, etc., at least on Meta's platforms. So no matter how "cringe" you may find it, it's done out of some degree of necessity and precisely because of these dumb moderation mechanisms, not out of any misguided, altruistic self censorship.

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

#355

Post by londons_explore »

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.

you can still flag via the community notes system.

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

#356

Post by throw83838445 »

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…

[flagged]

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

#357

Post by [deleted] »

hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #142
raxxor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claims are challenged all the time by other users and there are enough cases where fact checkers were wrong or heavily biased. EU legislation tries to introduce "trusted flaggers". A ridiculous approach, an information authority by a state-like entity doesn't work, even if they paint these flaggers as independent. They simply are not, a trusted and verifiable fact. Community notes provide higher quality info, it is t…

>Claims are challenged all the time by other users and there are enough cases where fact checkers were wrong or heavily biased. I've only seen a handful of cases where they were wrong of heavily biased, but I've seen hundreds of cases where the poster refuses to accept they are wrong and the fact checkers are right. >Community notes provide higher quality info, it is the better approach. That is an opinion of course.…

[deleted]

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

#358

Post by ibejoeb »

LtWorf wrote: post #168
drawkward wrote: post #37

Will this totally end content moderation? That could be a small silver lining, as content moderation for FB appears to be extremely hazardous to one's mental health: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/business/facebook-content-mod...

I'd love if they just sorted by timestamp, but no moderation + algorithm deciding what gets shown is not good.

That's pretty much the only legislation I'd support, i.e., a compulsory setting for chronological ordering of events, which effectively disables "the algorithm." Seems like it would be agreeable to media companies and pure libertarians alike.

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

#359

Post by renewiltord »

pests wrote: post #331
stronglikedan wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nah it’s offensive. Just because you don’t take issue doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt others.

I’m glad we’re moving on from the world where everyone would constantly be yelling “You’re hurting me! You’re hurting me!”.
Post reply on HN