Live data from Hacker News

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

about.fb.com

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think internet discussion worked far better without fact checkers, where some of them cannot really be called accurate. The community notes are the better approach. They aren't always correct either, but it certainly is the better fit for freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Fact checkers are the authority approach that just does not fit.

I haven't seen a single discussion be worse off due to fact checking, but I've seen tons of discussions where having it would improve things. I have seen people get mad because they can't post BS without it being challenged. To claim internet discussion worked better without fact checking is something I haven't seen any actual evidence for, just opinions like yours. Community notes is just a watered down, more easily…

You must have slept walked through covid then.

Citing the simple fact that every western government ignored their own pandemic plans and did adlib bingo instead was enough to get you banned of Twitter, Facebook and reddit for close to two years.

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

#702
post #38

As a leftist, while this is concerning, it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. So, while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith (what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?), this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.

>it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content.

This is a bold claim. I see a lot of people in this discussion that seem to have a very different experience. Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content".

>what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?

From what I've been able to tell the last several years, the overwhelming majority of your ideological opponents here have no interest in visiting physical harm upon others simply because of how they view and present themselves. They just don't want to be, or feel, compelled to treat the other person's self-image as an objective fact. Some of them additionally have concerns about capacity of minors to give informed consent for the related medical procedures, or consider it suspicious that the prevalence of such self-identification has risen drastically in recent years (to the point that they imagine social pressures toward such identification).

>Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.

I have seen statements like this from your opponents interpreted as veiled threats in the past.

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

#703
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous. Seems to me in my experience after decades…

>Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous. Fact checkers don't suppress information,…

Yes I am aware of what a fact checker is supposed to do and am aware of what they really do.

What they really do is spin information.

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

#704
post #588

I know some of those fact checkers. They are career journalists and the bar to tag a post as disinformation is extremely high. To tag a post, they need to produce several pages of evidence, taking several days of work to research and document. The burden of proof is in every way on the fact checkers, not the random Facebook poster. Generalizing this work as politically biased is a purposeful lie.

>...the bar to tag a post as disinformation is extremely high. To tag a post, they need to produce several pages of evidence, taking several days of work to research and document.

Why was the Hunter Biden laptop story thus categorized? As I recall, "several days" did not elapse between the New York Post publication of the story and its suppression on social media.

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

#705

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…

> Imagine math if we'd question the basic axioms.

The world we exeprience and the language we use to describe it doesn't have axioms like math, so it's no surprise people routinely disagree about these topics. Most of the subjects in your list contain a great deal of nuance. For example:

> whether crime is up or down

What counts as "crime"? Is it based on a legal definition or a moral defintion? What jursidictions does this include? What time period are we using as a baseline? Do we account for the fact that different jurisdictions measure crime differently and do we use the raw reported numbers or adjust for underreporting in the statistics? Do we weight our consideration by the severity of the crime or is it just the number of recorded offenses? The laws themselves may have changed over the period of consideration, so how do we account for that?

These questions don't have objective answers, so it's unsurprising people disagree.

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

#706
If you want automated fact checking you need to create a god. (... and creating a human team that does the same is playing God)

If you want to identify contagious emotionally negative content you need ModernBERT + RNN + 10,000 training examples. The first two are a student project in a data science class, creating the second would wreck my mental health if I didn't load up on Paxil for a month.

The latter is bad for people whether or not it is true. If you suppressed it by a large factor (say 75%) in a network it would be like adding boron to the water in a nuclear reactor. It would reduce the negativity in your feed immediately, would reduce it further because it would stop it from spreading, and soon people would learn not to post it to begin with because it wouldn't be getting a rise out of people. (This paper https://shorturl.at/VE2fU notably finds that conspiracy theories are spread over longer chains than other posts and could be suppressed by suppressing shares after the Nth hop)

My measurements show Bluesky is doing this quietly, I think people are more aware that Threads does this; most people there seem to believe "Bluesky doesn't have an algorithm" but they're wrong. Some people come to Bluesky from Twitter and after a week start to confess that they have no idea what to post because they're not getting steeped in continuous outrage and provocation.

I'm convinced it is an emotional and spiritual problem. In Terry Pratchett's Hogfather the assassination of the Hogfather (like Santa Claus but he comes on Dec 32 and has his sleigh pulled by pigs) leads to the appearance of the Hair Loss Fairy and the God of Hangovers (the "Oh God") because of a conservation of belief.

Because people aren't getting their spiritual needs met you get pseudo-religions such as "evangelicals who don't go to church" (some of the most avid Trump voters) as well as transgenderists who see egg hatching (their word!) as a holy mission, both of whom deserve each other (but neither of whom I want in my feed.)

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

#707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The reversibility of puberty blockers is highly disputed. Whether and under what circumstances trans women have no advantage over cos women is a highly complex question. We already have men who freely admitted to claiming to be trans solely for the purpose of accessing women’s locker rooms.

[flagged]

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

#708

They've also said there will be more harmful (but legal) content on there as they'll no longer automatically look for it, but require it to be reported before taking action. As someone who worked on harmful content, specifically suicide and self injury, this is just nuts - they were raked over the coals in both the UK by an inquest into the suicide of a teenage user who rabbit holed on this harmful content, and also…

Counterpoint: censorship inherently harms everyone. People I follow on Youtube have repeatedly had their ability to discuss topics such as suicide seriously interfered with. It actually gets in the way of factual reporting when a suicide occurs in the community and of discussing the facts of the situation so that people can learn from it and possibly prevent future deaths.

Not to mention, people just straight up have a right to talk about these things. It is not moral to hold one person responsible for an unintended and not reasonably foreseeable reaction to the discussion. And joking about these topics is legitimately therapeutic for some.

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

#709
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous. Seems to me in my experience after decades…

> Seems to me in my experience after decades of watching and participating in online discussion extremism really only became more problematic when fact checking and active efforts to suppress took hold. Whatever the good intentions may have been, the results were worse. Seems like the opposite. Traditionally we only had siloed forums which were often heavily moderated by volunteers who considered the forums their per…

> The difference between antivax sentiment now and circa 2005

The antivax movement literally grew exponentially when vaccine information started to be actively censored on the largest social media platforms and you think that is because there wasn’t enough censorship? People were literally driven into antivax information silos because a bunch of idiots decided that vaccine criticism should be forbidden in the public square

Wow.

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

#710

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…

https://gradientflow.com/the-moderation-dilemma-a-balanced-l...
Post reply on HN