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

Post by ethbr1 » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:12 PM UTC

hbn wrote: post #291

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…

Me and my friend share a joke instagram account where we'll randomly make stupid posts just to entertain ourselves. One time he posted a picture of himself holding a chair, standing on one foot with a goofy smile on his face, captioned "I'll hit you with this chair! Just kidding!" It got the account suspended until we deleted the post, claiming the post, and I quote, "could encourage physical violence and lead to a r…

Post by bagels » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:13 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #332

madeofpalk wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moving the moderation team from California to Texas is also noteworthy. Presumably because the political climate of California is so skewed from the rest of the country.

Post by jiriknesl » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

tqwhite wrote: post #339

The discussion here is painful to read. The 'neutral' discussion of product features and how Austin, TX is more liberal than the rest of Texas are grotesque. Zuckerberg says Facebook is going to be more "like X" and "work with Trump". It has changed its content policy to allow discussions that should horrify anyone. "In a notable shift, the company now says it allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when…

Post by mhh__ » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

throw83838445 wrote: post #356

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]

Post by mhh__ » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:15 PM UTC

aimazon wrote: post #313

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…

Fact checkers are the technocratic solution, they're a panel of experts to Community Note's jury of our peers. Fact checkers are a much better product feature than community notes if we want a feature that best serves people who care about facts. That's not our world, though. People don't care about facts, we are humans, our lives are lived based on vibes. The average person would rather listen to their idiot friend'…