News story about Zuckerberg sucking up to Trump.[1] News story about other CEOs sucking up to Trump.[2] News story about Bezos stucking up to Trump.[3] "The Führer is always right" [4] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/business/zuckerberg-trump-mus... [2] https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/kevin-oleary-explains-why-... [3] https://newrepublic.com/article/188170/jeff-bezoss-shocking-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
I've only been here about 1/30th as long as you, so I fully accept that I could be wrong here; but this really doesn't seem to measure up the standard of discourse that I understood to be expected on HN.
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 l…
So, why wasn't a mixed approach taken? That's the obvious question you should be asking. Paid fact checkers are leaps in quality and depth of research, meanwhile Jonny Twoblokes doesn't have the willingness to research such topic, nor the means to provide a nuanced context to the information. You are saying that the impact was limited, but it was not because it was low quality. If you do both, where the first draft id done by crowdsource with the professional fact checker to give the final version, I don't think you would have a good reason to not do it.
I mean, they were, e.g. the Twitter files. Or all of the handwavey threats around section 230
The twitter files that showed that accounts of conservatives got special treatment that explicitly prevented them from facing consequences of breaking site rules?
I have no idea how you cane to the conclusion that they showed any such thing. Even Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files) takes the stance that the points raised were generally showing bias against conservatives, and tries to downplay them.
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…
Generally fb has trended to worse rather than better. I already passed my personal tipping point years ago and quit fb.
Same. I deleted my account in like 2018. Since then Marketplace has more or less destroyed Craigslist. So two months ago I tried to create an account strictly for Marketplace. My email, phone, and location have all changed since 2018. Despite verifying phone and doing the most extreme KYC step of taking a picture of myself with my ID I still could not make a new account. So maybe they should focus on that?
SAD! Craigslist was a much better product and community even without the luxury of identity verification. It had some obvious spam but by and large worked fine once you got the hang of it. Marketplace is a cesspool of lowballers and sex workers with some shitty ML sprinkled on it, underneath it all some slow and clunky RPCs that need refresh all the time.
Forget about the sucky product. Who has Facebook been hiring in the past decade that built that technical crapshoot.
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…
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 l…
So, why wasn't a mixed approach taken? That's the obvious question you should be asking. Paid fact checkers are leaps in quality and depth of research, meanwhile Jonny Twoblokes doesn't have the willingness to research such topic, nor the means to provide a nuanced context to the information. You are saying that the impact was limited, but it was not because it was low quality. If you do both, where the first draft i…
I've answered elsewhere on the thread why I think the warning-label approach Facebook took was doomed to failure, as a result of the social dynamics of Facebook.
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…
> “maybe it's just a way of saying that certain kinds of 'content' like attacking trans people is going to be ok now”
The new policy explicitly says that allegations of mental illness are not allowed except if the target is gay or trans, so, yeah…
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…
> like people being in Texas makes them more objective?!
This is the least charitable interpretation. Obviously, it is not talking about a single person moving to Texas suddenly changing colors like a chameleon (although I suspect there is quite a bit of merit to that due to groupthink and community speech policing in BayArea/LA).
And yes, I think it won't be a stretch to think Texas would be more objective representation of general US PoV and less of a monoculture than FB sites in California. This is not a value judgement, just a natural function of the distribution of people.
Americans don't care about facts. There's a reason why you have Creationists at the highest levels of government.
Unnecessary attacks like this don't help your cause and part of what has driven the other side to the point they are at.
Do you mean that OP is incorrect, or just impertinent? Just because you have to use a light touch does not mean your friend does not have a Problem. (And I'm speaking as an American)