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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by ternnoburn »

netbioserror wrote: post #445
ternnoburn wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is a statement about yourself, not the US.

Not really? The democratic and republican parties are both classical liberal parties, invested in business and capital as the standard and correct way to organize a society. Classical liberalism is a center-right ideology, globally.

Show me the party in the U.S. that wants to abolish private property, wants to provide food, healthcare, and housing to all, that wants to nationalize key industries, that wants to govern from a standpoint of "wellbeing for all". If you can point me to a place where that's the prevailing ideology, I'll gladly recant the idea that no place like that exists here.

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

#662

Post by voskresenie »

jimbokun wrote: post #552
aimazon wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact checkers are the technocratic solution, they're a panel of experts to Community Note's jury of our peers. Fact checkers are a much better product feature than community notes if we want a feature that best serves people who care about facts. That's not our world, though. People don't care about facts, we are humans, our lives are lived based on vibes. The average person would rather listen to their idiot friend'…

Do you have some kind of analysis demonstrating Facebook fact checkers are more accurate than X’s Community Notes?

Breaking: Leading Fact Checkers Investigate, Find Leading Fact Checkers More Accurate Than Community Notes.

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

#663

Post by tptacek »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #551
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, I agree. But I think that can still be addressed separately from the fact that all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley are bending the knee to Trump (e.g. the Mar-a-Lago visits, the "donations" to his inauguration, etc.) I'll give you an example I find analogous. When Bezos forbid the Washington Post from giving a presidential endorsement, he wrote an op-ed, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio…

As someone active in "resistance"-type organization from 2017-2021, with fundamentally the same politics now as I had then: I think all this "bend the knees" shit is mostly working to the benefit of the GOP, and I wish people would stop it. We lost an election, in part because we bet that the median voter was prepared to disqualify MAGA Republicans. They are not. Find a new angle, so we can win in the midterms. This isn't working.

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

#664

Post by tptacek »

lr1970 wrote: post #534
davidw wrote: 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…

> The ideological bits are: ... Should we expect Meta doing 180 degrees u-turns every 4 years when another party wins US Presidential elections?

No, I expect over time they'll gradually settle into an equilibrium that works in both sets of circumstances.

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

#665

Post by mc3301 »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #491

> As a result, we’re going to start treating civic content from people and Pages you follow on Facebook more like any other content in your feed, and we will start ranking and showing you that content based on explicit signals (for example, liking a piece of content) and implicit signals (like viewing posts) that help us predict what’s meaningful to people. We are also going to recommend more political content based…

I really do wish that one of the major platforms would a strict white- and black- list. "Doomscrolling" would be so much nicer if one could have, say, strict filters set to "Don't ever show me pranks, fake useless diy, kids being exploited, anything gym related" and "I really like snowboarding, WW2 history and pinball machines." Of course, the algorithm is still gonna "do its thing", but with a few hard guides.

Sure, initially the platform's view time would decrease, but then maybe people would actually like that platform.

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

#666

Post by tptacek »

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…

Thanks for pushing for clarity here. So: I'm not saying that fact-checker warnings are ineffective because people just click through and ignore them. I doubt that they do; I assume the warnings "work". The problem is, only a tiny, tiny fraction of bogus Facebook posts get the warnings in the first place. To make matters worse, on Facebook, unlike on Twitter, a huge amount of communication happens inside (often very large) private groups, where fact-checker warnings have no hope of penetrating.

The end-user experience of Facebook's moderation is that amidst a sea of advertisements, AI slop, the rare update from a distant acquaintance, and other engagement-bait, you get sporadic warnings that Facebook is about to show you something that it thinks you shouldn't see. It's like they're going out of their way to make the user experience worse.

A lot of us here probably have the experience of reporting posts to Facebook for violating this or that clearly-stated rule. By contrast, I think very few of us have the experience of Facebook actually taking any of them down. But they'll still flash weird fact-checker posts. It's all very silly.

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

#668

Post by zahlman »

tshaddox wrote: post #468
stronglikedan wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not offensive in English, even though some virtue signalers insist on taking offense to it.

Have you ever seen someone use the slur without intending the same mean-spiritedness that the "virtue signalers" are taking offense to?

That's the thing. They aren't taking offense to mean-spiritedness directed at the person being referred to that way, except in cases where that person actually does have such an intellectual disability. And such language is normally directed at people of ordinary intelligence, to call them out for failing to think things through when they're perfectly capable of it.

There are, and should be, contexts where insulting people is socially acceptable and where such insults should not be censored. And no matter what words you use (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill), it's fundamentally impossible to get rid of the idea that a lack of (demonstrated) intelligence is inherently negative.

(It's noteworthy to me that the same activists don't seem to be able to identify any terms denoting lack of physical strength that are inherently offensive - except insofar as they invoke gender stereotypes. Why should it be any less objectionable to call someone a "weakling", for example?)

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

#669

Post by zahlman »

Suppafly wrote: post #405
JohnMakin wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been trivially demonstrable that the use of "forbidden" terms or swearing can affect your ranking on their algorithms, whether it be displaying your comment, or your post on someone's feed, etc., at least on Meta's platforms. So no matter how "cringe" you may find it, it's done out of some degree of necessity and precisely because of these dumb moderation mechanisms, not out of any misguided, altruistic self cen…

>It's been trivially demonstrable that the use of "forbidden" terms or swearing can affect your ranking on their algorithms Is it though? A lot of this self censorship seems to be a cargo cult thing where people just copy what they've seen other people do and assume it's necessary when it's really not.

>Is it though?

Yes. There are countless stories from Youtube creators who had their videos taken down or demonetized or had to edit and reupload them, because the AI detected that words such as "suicide" were spoken. And it's common knowledge that requests for review are routinely denied (presented as "we reviewed your case and the ruling stands", a judgment often received in less time than the runtime of the video).

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

#670

Post by zahlman »

qingcharles wrote: post #186
theptip wrote: post #118

Community notes seems to be quite well received. I like that the algorithm seems to be public and (IIUC) tamper-evident. The obvious context is that either Meta gets out of the content moderation game voluntarily, or the incoming admin goes to war with them. > focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations. I imagine this will in practice determine how far they can go in the EU. Community notes, sur…

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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN