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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by yieldcrv »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #460
yieldcrv wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the burning man camps I get invited to are a bunch of Gen X-ers conferring on Facebook groups so I wind up making a new Facebook account once a year for a few months although could see this moving to Discord across those same age ranges, I’m in some local groups there which overlap with festivals/events/things like the burn.

Yeah younger millenials and GenZ tend to do this sort of conversation on Discord.

yeah exactly, its now a better platform and has enough critical mass. With Nitro/Discord's paid plan you can change your profile per server if you identify different ways in different groups

I've seen Gen X-ers be notoriously inflexible about considering Discord or anything besides Facebook Groups, but as they say: nobody can prevent you from becoming like your parents

I tell that cohort "you can't Google this, you have to join the platform and search that channel", and they balk as if their Facebook Group that's segregating them is any different

back to burning man specifically, at this point it seems like I can get invited to different camps, so I'm excited about that. mixed age groups, stays fresh

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

#512

Post by Karrot_Kream »

redserk wrote: post #249
kelseydh wrote: post #190

It's funny how facebook got so political all the normies left, then they downranked political content so much that the political people left too. Facebook is a ghost town now.

Going back even further, one of the initial draws of Instagram pre-acquisition was that you could escape the toxicity of trolls and other socially unproductive behavior on Facebook. Meta has a big problem coming up. They'll get to the point where they won't be able to hide Facebook and Instagram's lackluster appeal. I suspect we'll start seeing advertisers peel away, followed by a few savvy investors first. Let's jus…

Users of this site have been saying that for literal years.

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

#513

Post by aprilthird2021 »

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.

It's ending because the government that encouraged fact checking is ending. The new one has made it clear they despise fact checkers

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

#514

Post by jimbokun »

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…

I can’t help but roll my eyes at mindless euphemisms like “attacking trans people.”

There are very serious issues involving trans people with no easy answers. Like allowing minors access to irreversible treatments. Like women’s sports. Like the safety of women only spaces.

I bring this up because on so many questions like these, the progressive reaction is to shut down any discussion and isolate themselves from exposure to any ideas different from their own.

It doesn’t work. And it doesn’t help anyone.

And maybe this has something to do with why Facebook is migrating to a “Community Notes” model.

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

#515

Post by pasimm »

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.

> while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith

Not really though. It means that feminist campaigners can advocate for single-sex spaces and services without the looming threat of being banned. This is great news and a win for free speech.

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

#516

Post by jimbokun »

davidw wrote: post #228
tptacek wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a product decision taken independently, maybe. Running one of those things at scale with all kinds of people trying to subvert it for various reasons, including some downright evil ones, is not an easy task. Announced together with everything else and given the timing, I just can't help but think there's a political component to all of it.

Fact checking, Community Notes, whatever you want to call it, is inherently political.

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

#517

Post by ethbr1 »

aimanbenbaha wrote: post #483
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…

Also didn't know Meta was outsourcing fact-checkers which is a very terrible idea that sponsored a shady economy of ghost workers that were paid pennies for reviewing gore content. It'll really take a special mind to think Community Notes wasn't a positive feature added to the social network sphere. Musk despite his schtick did very bold things that other platforms wouldn't think of doing, such as open-sourcing the r…

Facebook's approach to fact checking has always been cost-optimization.

It would have been a drag on profits to hire professionals to fact check and provide them enough time to do their job, at scale.

They quote numbers about how much they're spending as proof they're doing something, but that spend isn't normalized against the scale of their platform.

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

#518

Post by threeseed »

abtinf wrote: post #510
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 i…

> how about I get to use my critical thinking

Because no-one, including you, is an expert on everything.

So there will be many topics for which you will not be able to make an informed judgement about the accuracy of the content. And on a social network centred around sharing it can be very easy for inaccuracies to spread.

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

#519

Post by o11c »

hbn wrote: post #291
JohnMakin wrote: post #183

I'm certain it will make parts of the user experience worse, but at least for the Threads app, this seems at least a little necessary - if you're aiming to be the "new" twitter or whatever social need twitter was fulfilling, you need to break free of the shackles of IG/Meta moderation, which is very unforgiving and brutal in very subtle ways that aren't always easy to figure out. But basically, I find a platform like…

Me and my friend share a joke instagram account where we'll randomly make stupid posts just to entertain ourselves. One time he posted a picture of himself holding a chair, standing on one foot with a goofy smile on his face, captioned "I'll hit you with this chair! Just kidding!" It got the account suspended until we deleted the post, claiming the post, and I quote, "could encourage physical violence and lead to a r…

Frankly, if "ban people for joke violence" is the price we have to pay for "ban people for real violence", I'll take it.

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

#520

Post by tootie »

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…

Notably Zuckerberg did not cite any data for his assertions that community notes are effective.
Post reply on HN