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.
Even granting all that you say is true, it would be trivial for there to be bias in such an apparently rigorous process. All that is required is selective application of the rules.
Zuck still dreams of his despotic dictatorial empire where he can enslave millions and make them all trans via Police enforcement. This move is just to stop bleeding users to X.
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?
Removing the politics from this is rather impossible because it was so deliberately timed and explicitly positioned as political. But as a PM addressing the pure product question, I’d say it’s an unnecessarily risky product move. You’ve basically forgone the option to use humans professionally incentivized to follow guidelines, and decided to 100% crowdsource your moderation to volunteers (for amplification control, not just labeling btw). Every platform is different, but the record of such efforts in other very high volume contexts is mixed at best, particularly in responding to well financed amplification attacks driven by state actors. Ultimately this is not a decision most any experienced PM would make, exactly because the risk is huge and upside low. X’s experience with crapification would get any normal PM swift and permanent retirement (user base down roughly 60%, valuation down $30B - how’s the look on your resume?... So I go back to the beginning - this is plutocrats at play and not even remotely in the domain of a carefully considered product decision.
What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represent…
> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. To me it sounds better for large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion, like Qatar. I disagree that this is better for either Facebook users, or society as a whole. It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.
How is that different from fact checkers? They can also be driven by large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion?
Only the name "Community Notes" is less misleading then "Fact checkers".
The pressure has just shifted from being applied by the left to the right. There is still censorship on Twitter, it is just the people Elon doesn't like who are getting censored. The same will happen on Facebook. Zuckerberg has been cozying up to Trump for a reason.
fb has been censoring left wing stuff and leaving fascists be since several years. This is just "like before, but even more" I think.
What is this based on? I see so many people shouting things like this, but there doesn't seem to be any basis for these arguments. They seem a bit useless and empty.
The pressure has just shifted from being applied by the left to the right. There is still censorship on Twitter, it is just the people Elon doesn't like who are getting censored. The same will happen on Facebook. Zuckerberg has been cozying up to Trump for a reason.
You're right, censorship is same as lack of censorship.
How would fact checkers access the 90% of private content? And should they? I don't think so, even if the respective private content is questionable. The EU goes its own way with trusted flaggers, which is more or less the least sensible option. It won't take long until bounds are overstepped and legal content gets flagged. Perhaps it already happened. This is not a solution to even an ill-defined problem.
Yes. Those are all bad solutions. Banning social networks would be probably better.
Right, if you don't agree with people at an online community, these communities should just be banned!