Live data from Hacker News

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

about.fb.com

521–530 of 1001 posts

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

#521

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…

You sort of made your own counterpoint by giving a list of statistics that are far from objectively measurable and whose result and meaning depends a lot on the details of what exactly you're measuring and how.

Take inflation for example. Measure inflation in terms of gold, broken arm repairs, hamburgers, or houses and any will give you wildly different figures. The government preferred index prices a basket of goods but the particulars of the basket may not match you or anyone you know, and various corrections are necessary but are themselves subjective. An often disputed one is correction for goods substitution-- if steak goes up people buy less steak and more rice. The current preferred model of the government chains these corrections even though in reality you can only replace so much steak with rice before it's all rice and no steak. These indexes also have corrections for goods increasing in quality-- the price went up but its because the thing got better, not because inflation. etc.

yadda yadda, I don't mean to import the debate here but the point is that there is something to debate particularly when the statistics don't match a person's lived experience -- when the things they need to live are rapidly increasing in price-- especially when politicians are abusing the stats beyond the breaking point (I think of the time when the Biden administration was crowing about something like the rate of inflation increase no longer increasing. What a jerk! ... or is that a snap? ;) ).

And even when the fact itself isn't really in dispute there is often plenty of room for reasonable people to debate the implications or relevance.

When people confused these subjective issues for "basic axioms" and then impose their understanding as "facts" it's extremely problematic and highly offensive to people whose experience has taught them otherwise.

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

#523

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…

> It'll really take a special mind to think Community Notes wasn't a positive feature added to the social network sphere.

Attributing it to Musk, though, would require a time machine.

> recently suggesting the idea of optimising content with unregretted time spent that will reward healthy content and punish toxic content even if the two had the same number of impressions

The precise sort of censorship and "cancel culture" he decried upon purchase.

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

#524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact checkers are often wrong, and often corrupted by the activists that end up working at them. For example I’ve repeatedly noticed articles from Politifact that are blatantly wrong or very misleading. When I look up those authors and their other work, their bias is clear. Community notes on X/Twitter is far more effective and accurate.

The older I get, the more I realize that people just live in different realities and so many contradictory facts can be true. Obviously this is a source of conflict.

The idea of some kind of universal fact is also misleading, some statements of fact are only statements of belief, others are so ill-defined that people end up debating two different things.

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

#525
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People don't care about facts" is such an asinine reactionary way of thinking about macro dynamics in the world. It has no predictive power at all.

It resembles Objectivism. "The facts are the facts and you should see them the same way I do or else!!"

More like “the facts are the facts and reality does not care if you don’t believe in it”. It’s a special kind of nihilism to want to stick it to the universe and insist on one’s own alternative reality like an overgrown angry teenager edgelord.

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

#526

NYTimes with more on this: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/07/business/meta-fact-c...

Ironic that the NYT's article here focuses on the political angle instead of just the "facts" so to speak...

> It is likely to please President-elect Trump and his allies.

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

#527
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous. Seems to me in my experience after decades…

There's some academic research to the contrary; banning /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/coontown on Reddit reduced incidents of hateful speech across the platform. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_ban... / https://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is a great pithy slogan, but modern society needs bleach and chlorhexidine sometimes.

[flagged]

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

#528
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 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 expos…

Is it not possible that ‘attacking trans people’ is both (sometimes) a euphemism for criticism of maximalist positions and (at other times) a perfectly normal term that designates approximately what ‘attacking x’ generally means? There is such a thing as an unsubstantive and utterly unpleasant insult explicitly motivated by the fact that its target is trans. Many trans people say that there are many such, and one does not need to believe everything that trans people say (surely with the result of inconsistency!) to think that the evidence they present is not wholly concocted.

Others may misidentify respectable, good, or correct arguments as ‘attacks’ in narrower senses, but that no more makes the underlying categories meaningless than the misapplication of such descriptions as ‘true’, ‘valid’, ‘scientifically established’, or ‘by definition’. I have no general pithy answer to what one should do about the sorts of attack I have described, but I venture that it is reasonable to talk or attempt to do something about them. What term would you prefer?

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

#529

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…

It doesn’t matter if they were better or worse, it’s all relative. It depends on who you ask, everyone will give a different answer. You are looking at this from a technological and problem solving perspective, while the people who made the decision prioritized these much lower on their list. You need to think like a politician and consider the PR side of things. This is not about solving the problem, it’s about perception, only perception.

By implementing community notes, Facebook is shifting responsibility. Previously, the perception was that Facebook was doing fact checking (and no one really cared about the third parties). Now, the responsibility moves to the community. Not only does this shift responsibility, but it also makes Facebook appear politically neutral to Republicans, because they can say, "Hey, we did exactly what Musk did, and you liked it. We are politically neutral".

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My answer is don't. If something is subjective, then why bother? "Words are violence" is such a bullshit.

Okay, but you're saying this on a platform where the moderator (dang) follows intentionally vague and subjective guidelines, presumably because you like the environment more here than some unmoderated howling void elsewhere on the Internet.

The quality of the platform lives or dies on the quality of these decisions. If dang's choices are too bad, this site will die.

The situation is somewhat different between a niche community and a borderline monopoly. But it's also true that facebook's success depends on navigating it well. At the end of the day we can choose to use it or not.

To the extent that people feel forced to use a platform that's a reason to further bias away from suppressing free expression, even if the result is a somewhat less good platform.

Post reply on HN