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

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Post by jimbokun »

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]

This reminds me of William Buckley preferring to be governed by the first 100 names of the Boston phone book over the Harvard faculty.

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

#542

Post by causalmodels »

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.

You can absolutely sue Wikipedia [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W...

edit: My bad, I get the joke now.

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

#543

Post by ColdTakes »

josephcsible wrote: post #365
ColdTakes wrote: post #50

This is my conspiracy theory but this is all in preparation for the end of Section 230 which will also inadvertently kill Blue Sky.

I wouldn't mourn the loss of BlueSky, because it's basically designed from the ground up to create filter bubbles and echo chambers, and social media needs way less of those.

I'm sure you also think Twitter is the free speech capital of the internet as well.

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

#544

Post by bombcar »

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 most useful result of Community Notes I've seen is when someone posts something Y, and then a few hours later it comes out that actually it was Z, community notes have been able to attach "actually it was Z" to the original viral post, still being shared.

I don't know if anyone cared much about fact checker reports (or if anyone even bothered to track how often they ended up being wrong when looking back in review).

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

#545

Post by adolph »

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…

> "Move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California, and our US content review to Texas.

Prediction: it'll be cali-expats in Austin and nothing changes.

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

#546

Post by Ajedi32 »

hcurtiss wrote: post #340
qingcharles wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like Community Notes, and hate the rest of what Twitter has become. But... Community Notes is subject to "tampering." Elon's either removes the CNs himself from his posts, or his brigade downvote them to infinity so they don't appear on all the misinfo he posts.

Do we have any evidence that Musk has removed a CN on his own post? I've personally seen evidence to the contrary, and he makes a point of highlighting that even he gets a CN every now and then.

As the root comment noted, one of the great things about community notes on X are that the algorithm and the data it's operating on are public. If Musk were removing notes that would be trivial to prove. The fact that such claims of tampering are never accompanied by said proof should tell you all you need to know.

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

#548

Post by DrillShopper »

jimbokun wrote: post #516
davidw wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if everything you don't agree with is "political"

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

#549

Post by Dig1t »

bsder wrote: post #532
jimbokun wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Calling a legitimate argument a "dog whistle" is a classic tactic OP is talking about which is used to shut down discussion. Just debate the merit of what he's saying rather than try to label him as an enemy.

Breast reduction for children IS in fact irreversible. It causes huge scars and trying to get breast augmentation later is not actually restoring their body to its natural state. It is definitely something that is controversial. Also putting children on hormones is within scope of this conversation and DOES happen.

There are lots of people who detransition and regret their decision. Children who have been sterilized for life and have permanent scars. It's completely valid to have discussions about whether kids should be able to make these decisions (they shouldn't).

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

#550

Post by jimbokun »

throw83838445 wrote: post #403
chrisco255 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

[flagged]

You can’t possibly seriously believe this?

The whole point of science is to eliminate human authority as a source of truth. Every claim must be peer reviewed, should be replicated by independent parties, and open to falsification by new evidence.

“Appeal to authority” is always the wrong approach if you are seeking truth.

Post reply on HN