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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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…

Sadly the consensus was abused to push narratives once too often instead of actual leadership/guiding people to concepts/understanding/consensus building. Our leaders forgot/got too lazy/became too corrupt/dogmatic/complacent to care how to lead, abused the levers, and now it's going to probably take a generation for society to organize new trusted mechanisms.

Crime statistics/reporting are extremely gamed. It took a friend having a heinous crime committed against her by a large group, on a side street just off downtown Santa Cruz with no reporting for me to realize just how bad. We've probably all at this point had crime committed against us that the police didn't document which then destroys our faith in crime statistics.

I'm a super hippie. But there was a lot of manipulation/playing fast and free by the earlier global warming folks to try and get their message across breaking peoples trust and you are never going to get that trust back with models/projections no matter how good/accurate the assumptions used for those models/projections once the trust was lost.

Things like using COVID funds to KNOWINGS TEMPORARILY reduce child poverty with the goal of having INCREASED CHILD POVERTY statistics in the near future so that it could be used as a policy weapon again just does damage and makes poverty statistics more meaningless. Just politicians using abusing and manipulating instead of leading, breaking down more levers.

Stop with how gamed 'rate of inflation' was by this administration. You are never going to convince people WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE and are in CONTSANT distress that 'things are getting worse more slowly' is good. Sorry, you are going to have to lead and convince people on that one, not lazily use numbers. Again, it's lack of leadership.

See how the same things can be interpreted differently by different people and how much it's that these have been abused/used for manipulation/out of laziness/instead of leading?

Source: Other than my personal crime experiences it's from living in a red state and talking with people why they support crazy stuff or reject what seems like common sense to me.

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

#502

Post by LtWorf »

oliviergg wrote: post #136
LtWorf wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tools? The ones I use are done from people all over the world, certainly not predominantly in USA. https://map.debian.net/

Yes I somewhat agree on FOSS and I agree for the people. But I think that for the capital, it is massively US controlled (though is international too). Think of the seven first companies of the S&P500. (GAFAM, Nvidia, ...) If you look at the cac40 (france) or EUROSTOXX50 : I dont use directly any products of the tech company. But I'm sure that these companies use at least one the seven. Tech company in Europe are not…

Yeah I'd agree that we should just forbid selling our software companies to not so friendly superpowers.

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

#503

Post by LtWorf »

oliviergg wrote: post #386
alibarber wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European who does generaly feel that the continent is on its way to becomming a museum, describing the absolute bilge that the flagship products of Facebook, YouTube, X etc are as 'innovative' feels in the same ballpark as describing the work of tobacco companies to sell and advertise their products in the 50s-80s as innovative.

They were innovative. I don’t know for other eu countries, but it seems that in France, there were only unsuccessful copycat of end user service. I’m probably a bit harsh, it’s because I m under impression that the gap between us (eu vs us) is widening. 10 years ago, there was open source, there was ovh, there was hope. With the cloud, we have surrender a lot of power to massive us company.

In italy there existed many similar things before. The thing is that in USA they invest 200x more to "distrupt"

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

#504

Post by chillacy »

photochemsyn wrote: post #420
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…

I think prediction markets (polymarket et al) get this right. Every question as vague as "is the earth warming" has resolution details which define some way to resolve the question such that all parties (even those with economic interest to disagree) have trouble disputing the outcome.

For a question like the earth warming, it would usually be something like "according to ___.org website on Y date", which in that case the final prediction becomes: will the average temperature in the period from 2016-2026 be greater than Y on ___.org, which is a bit different than the original but easier to arbitrate.

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

#505

Post by jay-barronville »

intended wrote: post #477
jay-barronville wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Fact checkers will link or establish their evidence. The claim that the president was a Russian spy was never made afaik. But if you have evidence of a fact checker saying this, I’d appreciate it. I think you aren’t going to find it because overlapping fact checkers with news media is a slippery thing. News media is going to be combining opinion and news, to push an angle. Fact checkers are wont. I suspect you are sh…

> The claim that the president was a Russian spy was never made afaik. But if you have evidence of a fact checker saying this, I’d appreciate it.

I didn’t save the links, so no, I don’t have evidence ready to show you, and it’s not like I can just go to their websites and see an accurate history of their conclusions on specific claims, given that many of them have a history of simply burying their original conclusions once it becomes obvious they were wrong (e.g., [0]).

[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-200...

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

#506

Post by ethbr1 »

lobf wrote: post #478
ternnoburn wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

...how do you mean? What are you defining 'left of center' as?

Parent was making an observation that the entire US political discourse, including both sides, tends to be right of global center.

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

#507

Post by aprilthird2021 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #262
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…

Yeah I'd like to hear this too. I use both and I love community notes. People are pretending like this is some big culture war issue and a win for the right but I've seen community notes call out Elon for retweeting bullshit more times than I count. (As well as calling Jacobin our on there's) I also appreciate that if I liked a post that community notes called out and I'm getting a notification that was misinformatio…

Well the presidential election was a win for the right. FB and Meta have always complied with and often been an arm of the US govt regarding regulating speech on social media, and they are not really changing that. It's the gov't that's changing.

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

#508

Post by quicpr »

davidw wrote: post #212
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…

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…

[flagged]

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

#509

Post by miramba »

ball_of_lint wrote: post #482
flavius29663 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - whether the earth is warming or not The Earth is warming, but how much of it is caused by humans is under debate. The Earth is still coming out of an ice age, so it would be warming even without humans. Also, the more important question is: how much will it accelerate based on our emissions? If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit. But be…

https://xkcd.com/1732/ We've had in the last 100 years a temperature swing that usually takes a thousand years or more. We've already seen greater than +1C of temperature increase compared to before widespread use of fossil fuels. Is that caused by humans? Sure that's up for debate, in the same way whether tobacco causes cancer is. People are willing to be wrong when being wrong gives them money/status/utility.

> We've had in the last 100 years a temperature swing that usually takes a thousand years or more.

A cute xkcd is not a time machine. You rely here on indirect measurements of tree ring measurements or ocean sediments. You can't verify if there were any other factors at play over the millennia, and I seriously doubt that these methods can even be theoretically +/- 0.5 degree C accurate. You may believe that, but you can't verify unless you travel into the past. Besides, 1000 years are NOTHING on the scale we are looking at. If you live anywhere north of the 40th degree, the place you now sit was probably covered by an ice sheet without a living thing in sight, only 10000 years ago. And a 100000 years ago. There is no way that you can divide that timescale into thousands and measure every one of them with a high enough precision to compare it with the present. The bold claims of climate science have lost any scientific humility.

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

#510

Post by abtinf »

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 think both are atrocious features. It would be useful to know facts about a site or article: this is a new domain, this is a state-run outlet, etc.

But other than that, how about I get to use my critical thinking to evaluate the content I access without my “betters” trying to color it first?

Any day now, I’m sure Gmail will introduce a feature where Gemini will warn you that the article your grumpy uncle sent you is not nuanced enough. Or your cell provider will monitor your texts and inject warnings that the meme you shared doesn’t tell the whole story.

Post reply on HN