Ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to Community Notes model • Hacker News Board

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

#781

Post by cmdli » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:30 AM UTC

zahlman wrote: post #685

cmdli wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not seen any examples of the "official" fact-checkers being wrong; have you?

It's trivial to find examples. I put "fact checkers were wrong" into DDG and turned up: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/07/five-times-f... https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 https://reason.com/2021/12/29/facebook-masks-false-informati... Even when they aren't wrong, they can be biased. See for example: https://www.allsides.com/blog/media-bias-alert-politifact-fa... Also, compare and contrast how the…

In the examples you provided, they mostly deal with hotly-contested information around Covid-19, where there exists countless amounts of incorrect information, politicized reporting, and straight up propaganda. I'm not surprised that Facebook's fact-checkers got a couple articles mislabeled, especially if they blended in with the wave of genuine disinformation that accompanied the pandemic.

Given that there seems to only be two articles that are listed as falsely reported as misinformation (the Reason article and the BMJ article also mentioned in the Telegraph report from today), I have to assume that there actually aren't that many large errors on the part of the fact checkers. If there were more than two or the mistakes were much bigger, then the free speech advocates would never stop mentioning it.

There can definitely be bias when it comes to fact-checking, I wouldn't deny that. I also think that education and knowledge sharing can be greatly harmed by social media incentives to provide the most "engagement". Having an actual human in the process somewhere introduces some error but also cuts down on a lot of the dumb crap that would otherwise spread.

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

#782

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:35 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#783

Post by xvector » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:38 AM UTC

jacksnipe wrote: post #722

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'm not sure about better, but I'm concerned about a second Rohingya genocide. There was a lot wrong with Facebook's moderation system. Spend any time in any politically active groups -- or groups that like to discuss politics -- and you'll quickly find people complaining about deranking. Based on both the extreme frequency with which it's reported and my own experiences with Meta, I believe that they're not making i…

I tend to blame the people actually doing the genocide for genocide, rather than a social media network. Ultimately I think one can clearly draw the line for personal responsibility well before literal murder.

Tens of thousands of have been raped, entire towns have been destroyed, around 50k killed and 700k forced to flee.

If Western countries actually cared about the human cost of this genocide, it would be almost a trivial matter to stop it overnight with a few well placed missiles against Myanmar's military, which continues to perpetrate the genocide even today.

Instead, no real action is taken and it's just a talking point for "Facebook bad." Blaming Facebook for a genocide is like blaming videogames for an active mass shooter w/o actually doing anything to stop them.

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

#784

Post by dinkumthinkum » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:42 AM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #338

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…

You are being hoisted by your own petard. Lying with statistics is a very common thing and it is, in fact a cliche. I'm surprised you brought up the crime thing. There are so many problems with this. Also, note, one way to reduce "crime" is to just make many crimes legal but it does not change normal people's view of crime. What kind of statistics were used to decide that Iowa would go for Harris with an 18 point jump?

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

#785

Post by gitaarik » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:45 AM UTC

pests wrote: post #331

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.

Nah it’s offensive. Just because you don’t take issue doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt others.

So it's not offensive. Just because it hurts you doesn't mean others meant it that way.

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

#786

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:45 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #544

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 most useful result of Community Notes I've seen is when someone posts something Y, and then a few hours later it comes out that actually it was Z, community notes have been able to attach "actually it was Z" to the original viral post, still being shared. I don't know if anyone cared much about fact checker reports (or if anyone even bothered to track how often they ended up being wrong when looking back in revie…

[deleted]

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

#787

Post by LtWorf » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:51 AM UTC

gitaarik wrote: post #768

LtWorf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Experience.

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

#788

Post by xvector » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:51 AM UTC

LtWorf wrote: post #114

ColdTakes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So glad FB abandoned moderation. Both of you guys (left and right) blame Facebook for censorship. What a thankless job. I'd throw my hands up as well.

If you care so much about it, now you can contribute with Community Notes. The power is in your hands! Go forth and be happy.

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

#789

Post by gitaarik » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:55 AM UTC

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #513

donohoe wrote: post #2

From bad to worse. Meta is probably one of the single largest funders of fact checking. Now that appears to be coming to an end. Third parties will no longer be able to flag misinfo on FB, Instagram or Threads in the US. This is not good imho.

It's ending because the government that encouraged fact checking is ending. The new one has made it clear they despise fact checkers

Or they are more realistic, or less corrupt.

Seems to me that if some authority is determining what are facts and what are not for me, that I am easily shapable and foolable.

Community Notes at least don't claim they have the facts. So that leaves you more with a responsibility to make up your own mind.

I know this isn't for everyone, there are still a lot of people that like to have leaders tell them how they should live. But nowadays there are more and more people that like to have more independence. You will have to live with that too.

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

#790

Post by xvector » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 5:58 AM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #134

Perhaps, given the situation with Twitter, now "X", more web and mobile app users will come to understand that despite its size, Facebook is someone's personal website. Like "X", one person has control. Zuckerberg controls over 51% of the company's voting shares. Meta is not a news organization. It has no responsibility to uphold journalistic standards. It does not produce news; in fact, it produces no content at all…

As if actual journalists care to uphold "journalistic standards."

X/FB is far more trustworthy than the legacy news media, which happily censors salient stories at the request of the government and pushes very specific agendas that are totally out of touch with the average voter.

I can't even count how many times I've seen literal video evidence for a story on X that the news media twists or refuses to cover.