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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by j45 »

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…

Perhaps part of it is the optics that California is interpreting it for other places?

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

#622

Post by mhh__ »

aredox wrote: post #475
mhh__ wrote: 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.

Americans don't care about facts. There's a reason why you have Creationists at the highest levels of government.

Europeans are just as silly but mistake failure for sincerity. As a sad fantasist I'm immensely fond of Anglo culture but many brits are totally misaligned and insane.

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

#623

Post by spencerflem »

Eextra953 wrote: post #578
tqwhite wrote: post #339

The discussion here is painful to read. The 'neutral' discussion of product features and how Austin, TX is more liberal than the rest of Texas are grotesque. Zuckerberg says Facebook is going to be more "like X" and "work with Trump". It has changed its content policy to allow discussions that should horrify anyone. "In a notable shift, the company now says it allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when…

I feel the same way and I think the writing is on the wall for the near future of the world. It is disheartening to see people on a forum like HN who I assumed have values similar to mine fall right in line with conservative propaganda and try to act like this isn't an overtly political action. This decision is political, and it goes a lot deeper than left vs right - its about attacking support for a baseline scienti…

Yeah, its pathetic.

Fwiw, not everyone on 'hacker' news is like this, and many of the thoughtful ones are smarter than I am and skipped this post entirely. But its so disheartening the rot in the Silicon Valley ideology that's everywhere here.

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

#624

Post by paulddraper »

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…

Well, it's Austin, TX.

Travis County was blue 69-29.

Hardly a politically conservative place.

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

#626

Post by daveguy »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #546
hcurtiss wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you ban anyone who speaks against you, you don't even need moderation! Problem solved.

But of course he can turn it off. He owns the entire platform and algorithms on it.

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

#627

Post by coolhand2120 »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #581
coolhand2120 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? Isn't that like, authoritarian? "Fact-checking" completely removed the ability for debate and is therefore antithetical to a functional democracy. Pushing back against authority, because they are often dead wrong, is foundational to a free society. It's hard to imagine anything more authoritarian than "No I don't have to debate because I'm a fact-checker and by that m…

> But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? it's by third-party journalism organizations, not Meta employees, so not "people in authority"

They are given the title of fact checker, ending debate, this is the authoritarian part. It does not matter who employs them. If fact checkers were angels we wouldn’t have this problem. However fact checkers are subject to human nature just like the rest of us, to be biased, wrong, etc.. Do you think these fact checkers don’t have their own opinions? Do you think they don’t vote? Don’t lie?

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

#628

Post by llamaimperative »

torben-friis wrote: post #424
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 care about the fact checking part but I do care about the "removing the limits on political content on feeds". I think everyone can agree that polarizing content being pushed into people's feed for engagement is a very very bad mix with politics. There is no benefit for anyone in doing this, except for meta's metrics and propaganda outlets.

[flagged]

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

#629

Post by paulddraper »

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]

> Community notes are just opinions of random people on internet. Like Wikipedia.

IDK if you intended to compare this to the world's #1 comprehensive and trustworthy repository of information.

But if you did, mission accomplished.

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

#630

Post by wilde »

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 deep irony is that some of the original contributors to Birdwatch were working on this stuff at Facebook before being blocked for various reasons and leaving to work at Twitter.

To steelman this a bit, early versions of Birdwatch had problems with unsourced notes and speed of note display. There’s a bunch of research that shows that 1st impressions of info tend to dominate, so speed matters a lot.

In practice FB’s program was poorly resourced and overly complex so I’m not sure it ever achieved its theoretically lower latency.

Post reply on HN