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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by nomel »

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…

The problem I have with fact checkers, rather than "context expanders" is that their end product is a simple answer for things that may not be trivial. There may not be a clear binary answer.

> whether crime is up or down

Was the reporting consistent between the two timeframes (apathy, directions from police station, etc)? Was the reporting system fully operational both timeframes being compared? Is the reported vs actual crime ratio the same between the two timeframes?

> how many people live in poverty

> what the rate of inflation is

Is the metric calculated the same way between the two timeframes? If not, what's the justification for the new metrics? Is the answer the same if the old and new metric is used with the same data?

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

#412

Post by pesus »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #383
pesus wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking Menlo Park (or any of Silicon Valley, really) is in any way "extreme left-wing" is a sure indication you haven't spent any time there and are basing your viewpoints off of what others have said on social media. Billion dollar corporations by definition do not support anything remotely "extreme left-wing".

I’ve lived in SF, Mountain View and also the east bay and I’ve worked at a billion dollar company that did indeed support some very left-wing causes. Despite having grown up in a light blue state, the difference in politics was very noticeable when I got to SF/SV. This isn’t a value judgement, just my observation.

That's why I was talking about Silicon Valley, not SF or east bay. They're much different places. Besides that, a corporation giving lip service to diversity =/= "extreme left-wing" views. These billion dollar corporations are still capitalist, through and through. Actual extreme left-wing views are staunchly opposed to capitalism.

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

#413

Post by gruez »

mhh__ wrote: post #382
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…

With the exception of fiscal cost and global warming those are all quite subtle, actually. $Employer spends rather a lot of time replicating official inflation numbers, it's not trivial.

>$Employer spends rather a lot of time replicating official inflation numbers

Well? Does it match?

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

#414

Post by postepowanieadm »

Don't worry, there will be community notes and some form of eu/us/state notes. The paradigm has changes, moderation has to be separated from censorship and transparent. I would love to hear/read Audrey Tang's take on this, as CPP has been heavily involved in manipulating Chinese public opinion.

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

#415

Post by ternnoburn »

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.

It's widely regarded as a slur.

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

#416

Post by [deleted] »

morley wrote: post #318
dotancohen wrote: post #222

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. To me it sounds better for large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion, like Qatar. I disagree that this is better for either Facebook users, or society as a whole. It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.

I was under the impression that Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks, but I could be wrong. Community Notes have been used at Twitter for a long time. Are there examples of state-influenced notes getting through the process?

[deleted]

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

#417

Post by illiac786 »

throw83838445 wrote: post #391
mhh__ wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I "trust" Wikipedia more than I do fullfact and so on. They've all overplayed their hand.

You can not sue Wikipedia. You could sue facebook.

I hope I don’t sound condescending, that’s not my intent, but this made me smile, it means you think Wikipedia is special. I like that.

But, for the record, they regularly get sued. I think they are being seriously sued in India for defamation at the moment, for example.

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

#418

Post by pesus »

ternnoburn wrote: post #406
philwelch wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

You're generally correct, but I imagine you won't get a good reaction on HN to this viewpoint. Most people on here unfortunately don't really an understanding of politics beyond a very surface level one.

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

#419

Post by IncreasePosts »

ternnoburn wrote: post #406
philwelch wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Burlington, Vermont.

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

#420

Post by photochemsyn »

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…

Only one of those questions (earth warming rate) is clearly defined and scientifically addressable, as all the others have fairly subjective definitions (what is poverty? what is crime? how do we measure inflation objectively? etc.)

Even with warming, a 'fact' would be a data point at a particular time and location, assuming your sensor was correctly calibrated. You have to look at millions of data points across the entire globe for decades to get a sense of the current warming rate (which could be negative, flat, or positive). You have to do complicated statistics on all those data points to get a warming rate, and you'll have error bars on that, and the end result is not a 'fact' so much as a bounded estimate (+0.1 C / decade +/- 10% is plausible for the average surface temperature change averaged over the entire planet).

We can't even say with real certainty that 2100 will be warmer than today, as a supervolcano, asteroid impact, or global nuclear war could reverse the trend.

Post reply on HN