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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by nomel »

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]

> Community notes are just opinions of random people on internet

It's much more complicated than that. Here's the white paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.15723

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

#432

Post by mhh__ »

gruez wrote: post #413
mhh__ wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes (any more detail would be telling), ahead of time even, but my point is that we're mimicking the governments numbers not actually estimating a "true" value.

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

#433

Post by guax »

Community notes and enforcement might help meta in the long run as being a step into more organically managed content that can scale better than simple moderation.

I have my serious gripes with how Instagram currently manages reports. I've recently reported a clear racist post promoted to me on Instagram that did not get removed or acted on. They seem to go the route of "block it so you cannot see the user anymore but let everyone else see it".

So as far as I can tell the only thing that Instagram actually moderate at the moment are gore and nudity, regardless of context. So barely dressed sexualised thirst traps are ok, black and white blurred nipples are not, everything else is a-ok.

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

#434

Post by wat10000 »

nomel wrote: post #411
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 a…

It’s not realistic, or IMO necessary, to put more into it than the original claim does, besides bringing actual sources to the table.

If the original claim is that crime is really up but it doesn’t show in the official figures because of subtle factors X Y and Z, then sure, a fact check saying this is wrong needs to dive in and explain why those factors don’t account for it.

But if it’s just “crime is up 87% since Biden took office” then “actually, crime is down N% in that period, see link from relevant stats agency here” is fine.

The latter is about a million times more common.

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

#435

Post by bdangubic »

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.

hi retard, good post :)

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

#436

Post by rwmj »

tptacek wrote: post #217
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…

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…

Clegg left a few days ago, and the Oversight Board issued a statement which sounds like they were in the dark:

> “We look forward to working with Meta in the coming weeks to understand the changes in greater detail, ensuring its new approach can be as effective and speech-friendly as possible.” [1]

So is it possible this was only announced recently. It might have been "in the works" in the C-suite for a bit longer, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence it was widely known before very recently.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/07/meta-face...

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

#437

Post by hyperliner »

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]

[dead]

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

#438

Post by cmdli »

nxm wrote: post #26
donohoe wrote: post #2

From bad to worse. Meta is probably one of the single largest funders of fact checking. Now that appears to be coming to an end. Third parties will no longer be able to flag misinfo on FB, Instagram or Threads in the US. This is not good imho.

Who was checking the fact checkers, when they were wrong quite often?

I've not seen any examples of the "official" fact-checkers being wrong; have you?

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

#439

Post by throw83838445 »

illiac786 wrote: post #417
throw83838445 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But could you actually get any money from suing Wikipedia? They would just deflect blame to volunteer editors.

Why do you think facebook is ending fact-checkers now? Editors are hired by facebook, facebook is the publisher. If facebook publishes "fact" and people get harmed as result, Facebook gets sued to bankruptcy. There is no protection from government anymore!

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

#440

Post by mhh__ »

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'm referring to the organisations that anoint themselves as arbiters of truth rather than just Facebook but I suppose the point almost stands
Post reply on HN