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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by aimazon »

mhh__ wrote: post #379
aimazon wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

"People don't care about facts" is such an asinine reactionary way of thinking about macro dynamics in the world. It has no predictive power at all.

We don’t. People are social. We care about what the people in our community think, whether it’s factually accurate or not is inconsequential. Those of us wasting our lives arguing on the internet in the pursuit of truth are a tiny minority of atypical people. People yearn for the warm embrace of affirmation, not the cold hard truth challenging them at every turn.

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

#402

Post by cryptonector »

mhh__ wrote: post #379
aimazon wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

"People don't care about facts" is such an asinine reactionary way of thinking about macro dynamics in the world. It has no predictive power at all.

It resembles Objectivism. "The facts are the facts and you should see them the same way I do or else!!"

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

#403

Post by throw83838445 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #395
throw83838445 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"fact-checkers were authoritative source of the truth" There is no such thing. If your understanding of truth is so flat, you're incredibly ignorant and dangerously foolish. Biases, perception, and propaganda influence the "truth" you see in the world. And no one is immune to it. Even large groups of very smart people are not immune to it. In fact they're even more often prone to groupthink.

[flagged]

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

#404

Post by chrisco255 »

linuxhansl wrote: post #338

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…

What you're talking about is statistics. Statistics are not irrefutable facts. They're data points from a report, and they are often incredibly easy to manipulate depending on how the macro is assessed. Usually it's impossible to gather stats over large, complex, chaotic populations. Instead samples are taken and applied to the whole and interpolated in-between. And in that interpolation an incredible amount of manipulation and even pure laziness is possible. It's possible to misrepresent the error bars of your conclusion. It's possible to leave out important details. It's possible to be selective about your time frame. There are a myriad of ways to mess up or screw up statistics. The more chaotic the system, the more difficult it is.

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

#405

Post by Suppafly »

JohnMakin wrote: post #354
pests wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cen…

>It's been trivially demonstrable that the use of "forbidden" terms or swearing can affect your ranking on their algorithms

Is it though? A lot of this self censorship seems to be a cargo cult thing where people just copy what they've seen other people do and assume it's necessary when it's really not.

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

#406

Post by ternnoburn »

philwelch wrote: post #258
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…

Austin is much closer to the center of mainstream American sentiment than the SF Bay Area, but it’s still to the left of center.

[flagged]

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

#408

Post by avs733 »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #166

I'm sure it's a win for Meta (less responsibility, less expense, potentially less criticism, potentially more ad dollars), but certainly a loss for users. More glad than ever that I deleted my FB account 10 years ago, and Twitter once it went X.

> More glad than ever that I deleted my FB account 10 years ago

I hung on to facebook largely because marketplace makes parenting markedtly cheaper. I've used it less and less to the point I forget about it. This finally inspired me to full delete the account.

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

#409

Post by throw83838445 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #396
throw83838445 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can not sue Wikipedia. You could sue facebook.

Of course you can sue Wikipedia. There's no law against suing Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is just a platform, it is not a publisher. Facebook was the publisher!

Suing Wikipedia would be like suing email and SMTP protocol!

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

#410

Post by gruez »

kiney wrote: post #397
linuxhansl wrote: post #338

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…

most of those things are actually not verifiable measurable facts within any useful definition

???

Aside from maybe "whether crime is up or down" (because of under-reporting), everything else can be objectively measured. The measurements might not fit with everyone's specific circumstance (eg. earth is warming as a whole but it's unseasonably cold where you live), but that's not a reason to throw up our hands and say "those things are actually not verifiable measurable facts within any useful definition".

Post reply on HN