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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by lotsofpulp »

lifeinthevoid wrote: post #799

It’s funny to see these tech moguls bend the knee for the new king. All their values, their so called care for the community, everything they say, everything, … is just all a big play in an effort to make as much money as they can. It sickens me to watch this stuff unfold.

It’s not just a new king, it was the fact that the other party won the popular vote resoundingly after all these years meant that the 2016 elections weren’t just a fluke.

Repubs have all 3 branches for at least a few years now, and there will be enormous changes in tax policy in legislation that will be passed this year, due to many popular provisions of the 2017 TCJA expiring at the end of 2025. And Dems will basically be left out of the conversation as their votes are not needed.

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

#802

Post by intended »

pona-a wrote: post #637
Seattle3503 wrote: post #491

> As a result, we’re going to start treating civic content from people and Pages you follow on Facebook more like any other content in your feed, and we will start ranking and showing you that content based on explicit signals (for example, liking a piece of content) and implicit signals (like viewing posts) that help us predict what’s meaningful to people. We are also going to recommend more political content based…

They will just relabel what is political. Union organizing? A bill on internet censorship? Anything mildly inconvenient to Meta or its shareholders? That's politics, you said you don't want to see any politics, didn't you? The culture war? Well, that's just pop culture, so that gets a pass.

Everything important is politics though. Celeb talks about her experiences - politics. Earth is getting warmer - politics.

Our lives ARE political.

Hell, right now researchers on misinformation are being harassed by senators to bankrupt them, and create living lessons to stop others from reducing the reach of manipulative content.

WE already had the entire free speech fight at the dawn of content moderation. We collectively ran millions of experiments, and realized that if you dont moderate community spaces, the best ideas DONT rise to the top, the most viral and emotional ones do.

If you want to see what no moderation looks like, you can see 4 Chan.

By nature, taking a stand on being factual, is automatically political because there are people who are disadvantaged by facts. Enron and oil producers spread FUD over global warming because it was problematic for their profits.

Stopping their FUD, is censorship via moderation. How is a regular joe going to combat a campaign designed to prevent people from reaching consensus?

Anyway, this is going to be fun.

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

#803

Post by tgma »

pavlov wrote: post #742
tgma wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 represent…

Is the distribution of people in Austin so very different from the Bay Area? Both states are internally diverse. And it’s just silly to suggest that “groupthink and community speech policing” is something that exists in California but not Texas.

> Is the distribution of people in Austin so very different from the Bay Area?

If we just go by presidential election, Travis County's result is more balanced than SF and San Mateo, almost on par with Alameda county, so the answer is "slightly." However, the moment you get exposed outside the core Austin area, you deal with predominantly red areas. To get the same effect you have to go as far as Placer County or Sonoma, so I don't think the FB workers in Bay Area (SF/Menlo Park) have quite the same level of exposure.

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

#804

Post by tgma »

grahamj wrote: post #749
tgma wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 represent…

I don't see how it matters where the mods are located when their instructions still come from California.

Of course it matters. Have you seen the emotional reaction people get to Trump/Kamala posts?

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

#805

Post by rcpt »

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…

Threads is confusing as all hell. Who are these random people? Which post am I replying to? Does this appear on my Instagram?

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

#806

Post by intended »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #801
lifeinthevoid wrote: post #799

It’s funny to see these tech moguls bend the knee for the new king. All their values, their so called care for the community, everything they say, everything, … is just all a big play in an effort to make as much money as they can. It sickens me to watch this stuff unfold.

It’s not just a new king, it was the fact that the other party won the popular vote resoundingly after all these years meant that the 2016 elections weren’t just a fluke. Repubs have all 3 branches for at least a few years now, and there will be enormous changes in tax policy in legislation that will be passed this year, due to many popular provisions of the 2017 TCJA expiring at the end of 2025. And Dems will basica…

They won on the backs of decades of efforts to prove that the culture wars were unhealthy for America. That worrying about climate change was a hoax. That evolution itself is controversial. That universities and authority figures are not to be trusted. That somehow, Fox News, the biggest media corp in America, is not the main stream media.

They got here, by destroying our ability to fight disinformation. They beat climate science in the 90s, by giving air time to cranks, and then senators used those specious arguments to stall climate bills. When scientists came onto Fox to try and reach the audience, they were thrown to the lions for the entertain of the audience. Derided and mocked with gotchas and rhetorical arguments designed to win the perception game.

This is a continuation of that game. Because it works. The idea that free speech is at risk because of moderation is amazing, because it is being revived after being tested by everyone online. We started the internet without moderation, we believed that the best ideas win.

We have moderation everywhere now, because we know that this fact is empirically untrue. The most viral ideas propagate. The ones most fit to survive their medium - humans.

I agree that they won, because they played the game to win. But we should not miss how they worked hard, to set up the conditions for this type of a win.

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

#807

Post by bee_rider »

adolph wrote: post #545
davidw wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "Move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California, and our US content review to Texas. Prediction: it'll be cali-expats in Austin and nothing changes.

They’ll be inside the jurisdiction of whatever rules Texas feels like making.

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

#810

Post by 2flex »

xvector wrote: post #783
jacksnipe wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We can look at precedent here. RTLM's involvement in the Rwandan genocide for example would be a good place to start. There's a pretty explicit connection between the radio propaganda (RTLM furthered the Hutu Power ideology) and the actual violence. We should be able to draw a distinction between Jack Thompson and Tipper Gore fearmongering versus explicitly violent rhetoric designed to dehumanize people and promote the eradication of those people.

The actions taken by the US in response to the genocide in Myanmar were largely economic because, I would think, their proximity to China. Can't imagine direct intervention would have gone smoothly.

For the record, I don't think our response in Myanmar or Rwanda were good, not trying to dispute or downplay that.

Post reply on HN