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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by zahlman »

daveguy wrote: post #626
Ajedi32 wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Musk can't ban people from HN. If there existed evidence of him removing CNs from his own Twitter posts, it could trivially be posted here.

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

#672

Post by emmelaich »

toss1 wrote: post #611
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…

If it was in the works for a long time, then Zuckerberg has been planning to bend the knee to Trump for a long time. Today, Trump in press conference (video at [0]: Q: "Do you think Zuckerberg is responding to the threats you've made to him in the past?" TRUMP: "Probably. Yeah. Probably." This tells us all we need to know. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with yielding to political pressure to ben…

Bending left and right according to the government of the day doesn't tell you where the true center is.

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

#673

Post by Seattle3503 »

clubsoda wrote: post #648
hahahacorn wrote: post #595

Unpopular opinion: I would rather just be on a global-entry-esque kyc'd social media platform at this point. Bots and gov-psyop trolls are certainly (hopefully) like 95% of the gross misinformation, right? I'd give some reasonably trustworthy platform my Passport and identity to speak to only other people who have done the same.

Not at all! It’s been talked about before. The problem becomes, do you trust the company implementing it?

It works in banking.

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

#674

Post by nailer »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #193
nailer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> people just do not wish to participate in other peoples gender performances. The “bad faith” is in the pretending that we don’t all participate in gender performance with every single person we come into contact with, every single day, for our entire lives.

The post you are responding to does not claim otherwise.

Again: it is specifically pointing out that other people are not obliged to participate in other people’s performance.

People are free to act, have whatever cosmetic surgery or take whatever hormones they wish to.

Where their rights end is asking other people to refer to them based on their performance rather than their sex.

Again, it is not ‘bad faith’ for Meta to allow discourse from people to disagree with gender ideology. Meta are not hiding anything, they are directly saying that they want to allow people that disagree with gender ideology - which judging by the last election is most Americans - to use their services.

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

#675

Post by nailer »

efdee wrote: post #277
nailer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank God. Fact checkers and political organisations pretending to fact check frequently spread false information. Aside from the 2020 election interference regarding the Hunter Biden laptop (which was falsely claimed to be a Russian disinformation effort), you can visit Snopes right now and read an article on how someone that blew up people (and now works for BLM) may not be a terrorist because ‘there are many diffe…

I think that Snopes link makes it perfectly clear what is going on. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's wrong.

No. Someone who attacks civilians for political gain is a terrorist.

Edit for the reply below: yes that very obviously includes being a member of a group that attacks civilians for political purposes.

There being debate over whether other groups that do other things should be called terrorists is a separate matter.

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

#676

Post by nailer »

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…

[flagged]

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

#677

Post by nailer »

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…

> Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers

Yes, but are they true?

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

#678

Post by numpad0 »

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.

Not a huge problem so long it remains a means to indicate that the post is hallucinatory. Content of checks/notes don't matter, it's tone policing.

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

#679

Post by nailer »

llamaimperative wrote: post #628
torben-friis wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]

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

#680

Post by defrost »

nailer wrote: post #675
efdee wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Snopes link makes it perfectly clear what is going on. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's wrong.

No. Someone who attacks civilians for political gain is a terrorist. Edit for the reply below: yes that very obviously includes being a member of a group that attacks civilians for political purposes. There being debate over whether other groups that do other things should be called terrorists is a separate matter.

Her specific crimes were possession of unregistered firearms, transport of firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce, unlawfully use of false identification documents, and robbing armoured cars.

Given all armoured car robbers would engage in such activities (unregistered firearms, explosives, fake papers, etc),

is it your position that all armoured car robbers are terrorists?

Post reply on HN