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

Post by sjsisixkxkkxxx » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:45 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #77

dmazin wrote: post #38

As a leftist, while this is concerning, it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. So, while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith (what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?), this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.

> this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza, don't count on it, because this censorship is bipartisan in the United States. Zuck cares about currying favor with the powerful. He doesn't give a crap about the powerless. Also, he's pretending that Texas, the proposed site for content moderation, is not politically biased, which is lau…

Post by torben-friis » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:45 PM UTC

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…

Post by wat10000 » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:47 PM UTC

josefritzishere wrote: post #199

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…

Generally fb has trended to worse rather than better. I already passed my personal tipping point years ago and quit fb.

Post by marknutter » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:48 PM UTC

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.

Post by nomel » Tue, Jan 07, 2025, 8:48 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #421

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…

I don’t use either Facebook or X so I have no personal experience. But the New York Times cited this meta-analysis for the proposition that they’re not ineffective: Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01973-x They also cited this paper for the proposition that Community Notes doesn’t work well because it takes too long for the…