361–370 of 1001 posts
I use Instagram and Threads specifically because of the relative lack of political content on them. If they also start to become cultural war grounds like everything else then RIP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is different than the fact-checking, and has to do with automated moderation algorithms (which generally suck), which are continuing (because advertisers want them).
Yes, it is, but the salient point that I felt was clear in that post was to demonstrate that these systems don't work well, and that such systems have such a poor understanding of context and circumventions as to be rendered ineffective if not totally counterproductive. I'm fully aware such mechanisms aren't going anywhere, right now, but at least Meta is acknowledging the fact that at present, they aren't really pro…
that's very different and a case where the closed community should bear that responsibility
but as far global FB community -- which doesn't really exist (there is no "community", just users) -- or, more precisely, what ends up in people feeds, the fact checking was a good thing because a lot of people consume news that way; so this is a big step in the wrong direction
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…
the thing is both community notes and top down moderation, if they have any purpose at all, are product malpractice. If they work, they are always going to be intrusive because that's what they're supposed to do, correct factually wrong information. Community notes is the neighborhood police, top down moderation is the feds but if they do their job either one is going to be annoying by definition.
If they're not intrusive they don't perform a corrective function and that's what largely happened to community notes. As time goes on they're more and more snarky and sarcastic meta comments rather than corrections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any fact checker is going to be inevitably biased. For a debate, there should be two fact checkers, each candidate gets to pick a fact checker. That could lead to a debate between the fact checkers, which would derail the debate. Better to not have fact checkers as part of the debate, and leave the fact checking to the post-debate analysis.
If you don’t have fact checkers, a debate loses all its value. Debates must be grounded in fact to have any value at all. Otherwise a “debate” is just a series of campaign stump speeches.
This is my conspiracy theory but this is all in preparation for the end of Section 230 which will also inadvertently kill Blue Sky.
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.
They're suggesting that the people who conceivably might take issue generally don't and are instead being patronized by and condescended to by privileged, unaffiliated outsiders who assume -- without consent -- to speak on their behalf. And they don't take those people seriously.
It's totally reasonable to disagree with that view, but it's the not the same view your reply tries to engage with.
Community notes has worked well on Twitter/X, but looking at the design it seems super easy to game.
Many notes get marked 'helpful' (ie. shown) with just 6 or so ratings.
That means, if you are a bad actor, you can get a note shown (or hidden!) with just 6 sockpuppet accounts. You just need to get those accounts on opposite sides of the political spectrum (ie. 3 act like a democrat, 3 act like a republican), and then when the note that you care about comes up, you have all 6 agree to note/unnote it.
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.
Regardless of what you think about this step I find it disconcerting that we can now disagree on facts. For example: - whether crime is up or down - whether the earth is warming or not - how many people live in poverty - what the rate of inflation is - how much social security or healthcare costs - etc These are all verifiable, measurable facts, and yet, we somehow manage to disagree. We always used to disagree and t…
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…
I think you misunderstand what Meta is doing here. They’re not stopping moderation of posts. Meta used to pay third party company fact checking companies to put disclaimers on “misinformation” posts on Facebook. They’re going to stop that now. They’re still going to continue their other more traditional moderation where you’ll be banned for making an obvious tongue in cheek joke or whatever.