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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by tensor »

naasking wrote: post #91
silverquiet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think facts ever contradict each other, it's the stories people create to explain the facts that are at odds. These stories lead people to extrapolate other beliefs which they present as "facts", and it's an organic process of discussion and exposure that changes peoples minds over time. I personally think aggressive fact checking authorities impedes this process, because people don't change their minds when…

I also think that simple exposure to a narrative, whether it has any actual facts/data backing it up or not, is likely the primary driver of people believing it.

Now, consider that in most "free speech" societies, those with money can repeat things many orders of magnitude more than others. Over time, this results in influence. Thus, while many countries have "free speech," I'd say they don't have "fair speech." The two concepts complement each other, but one is not the opposite of the other.

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

#563

Post by cryptonector »

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…

All of these sorts of facts are manipulable and/or not easily knowable.

> - whether crime is up or down

Manipulable by the agencies that keep track of and publish those stats. Governments often manipulate these.

> - whether the earth is warming or not

There is a huge amount of controversy in climate science. Check the "Climate Gate" files from 2009 for example. Check out the controversies over weather station siting for another.

> - how many people live in poverty

Poverty levels vary with time and by country, and are typically set by governments. People often disagree as to what defines poverty. Poverty stats are manipulable.

> - what the rate of inflation is

You should look into what Argentina did around 2012.

> - how much social security or healthcare costs

The figures from the budget are not controversial. How much healthcare spending is wasteful is a completely different matter. Quality of healthcare is also very much subject to debate.

> These are all verifiable, measurable facts, and yet, we somehow manage to disagree.

They are not easily verifiable because they are mostly susceptible to manipulation. Therefore it's not surprising that people disagree.

> [...] And that leads to an total inability of having any discussion at all.

No, it means that discussion might have to start with the fact that there is disagreement as to facts and then you can have an open discussion about why, what is being done to prevent consensus forming as to those "facts", what needs to change to make that possible, etc.

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

#564

Post by Karrot_Kream »

coffeemug wrote: post #240
insane_dreamer wrote: post #166

I'm sure it's a win for Meta (less responsibility, less expense, potentially less criticism, potentially more ad dollars), but certainly a loss for users. More glad than ever that I deleted my FB account 10 years ago, and Twitter once it went X.

My twitter account wasn't big, but it was non-trivial (~30K followers). A post could usually get me to experts on most topics, find people to hang out with in most countries, etc. There were many benefits, so deleting was very hard. But it was eating my brain. I found myself mostly having tweet-shaped thoughts, there was an irresistible compulsion to check mentions 100 times a day, I somehow felt excluded from all th…

Like alcohol and drugs, I think there's a certain kind of person that's susceptible to social media addiction. I don't think it's a large segment of the population but I also have no idea how big it is either.

Plenty of people can drink or consume weed in moderation. Likewise I know a lot of people who mostly use socials in the bathroom or before bed but rarely elsewhere.

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

#566

Post by jimbokun »

eynsham wrote: post #528
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…

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 doe…

It’s possible theoretically.

In practice people complaining about attacks on trans people almost always want to shut down discussion about related topics all together.

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

#567

Post by wat10000 »

pests wrote: post #559
wat10000 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very human. This is no different from people using terms like gosh, shucks, and darn, instead of their stronger relatives. It’s just how profanity works, no need to worry about it.

Fck is just as strong as fuck, not sure how that could be confused at all.

No, definitely not. It’s stronger than “fudge” but not quite the same as the real thing.

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

#569

Post by ChocolateGod »

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]

> basically making it harder for teenage boys to be manlier

Making it harder for teenage boys having surgery to fit a stereotype sounds like a win?

I don't think you thought that point through.

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

#570

Post by jimbokun »

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]

This is exactly what I’m talking about.

A demand to censor any opinions dissenting from what you already believe.

Post reply on HN