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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by e2021 »

cmdli wrote: post #438
nxm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who was checking the fact checkers, when they were wrong quite often?

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

Joe Biden is sharp as a tack and any videos purporting to show the opposite are cheap fakes deceptively edited by the Republicans and their far right allies [1] [2] [3]

[1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/21/cheap-fake-vi...

[2] https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-videos-age-cheap-fake...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/biden-g7-video-j...

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

#832

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#834

Post by red_trumpet »

gitaarik wrote: post #766
dotancohen wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Fact checkers are employed by Meta?

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

#835

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

bag_boy wrote: post #713
viraptor wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the marketplace in some countries. Wanna sell some furniture locally? It may be close to the only option.

Just wait until they release a job board. They’ll figure this out soon.

They tried this years ago, but didn't make it work.

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

#836

Post by raxxor »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
kcplate wrote: 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…

There's some academic research to the contrary; banning /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/coontown on Reddit reduced incidents of hateful speech across the platform. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_ban... / https://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is a great pithy slogan, but modern society needs bleach and chlorhexidine sometimes.

Maybe it reduced hate on this single metric, but the complaint is more about the errors in fact checking.

And single subreddits aren't really convincing about the reliability of fact checkers if their independence is in question. In the end they do rely on a truth-authority, which is problematic, especially for political content. And Meta reported that political demands increased.

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

#837

Post by thih9 »

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…

> just because I stop my car to watch a train wreck doesn't mean I want to see more train wrecks

I guess FB will be the judge. They might even stop showing train wrecks to a person if they notice metrics dropping. Some of these metrics might even track the user’s well being, although most will focus on the well being of shareholders.

We lost the levers long time ago, replaced by opaque algorithms; are there any signs for this to change?

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

#838

Post by ARandomerDude »

toasteros wrote: post #818
davidw wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a product decision taken independently, maybe. Running one of those things at scale with all kinds of people trying to subvert it for various reasons, including some downright evil ones, is not an easy task. Announced together with everything else and given the timing, I just can't help but think there's a political component to all of it.

> I just can't help but think there's a political component to all of it. "We're moving to Texas to eliminate perceptions of bias" is the biggest giveaway of this.

Austin is very left of center. If they end up there, they will have ideologically strayed in California while geographically moving to Texas.

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

#839

Post by thih9 »

mc3301 wrote: post #665
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…

I really do wish that one of the major platforms would a strict white- and black- list. "Doomscrolling" would be so much nicer if one could have, say, strict filters set to "Don't ever show me pranks, fake useless diy, kids being exploited, anything gym related" and "I really like snowboarding, WW2 history and pinball machines." Of course, the algorithm is still gonna "do its thing", but with a few hard guides. Sure,…

In some way this already works - if you have the skill to actually not watch the stuff and flag it as “don’t show me again”.

If the platform’s view time increases only when it shows you “snowboarding, WW2 history and pinball machines", then you and the platform are aligned.

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

#840

Post by rolandog »

brigandish wrote: post #750
abtinf wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because no-one, including you, is an expert on everything. As I said, god forbid I forget my place and use my mind in the domain of my betters.

Looks like we got ourselves a reader … Yep, reading, researching, considering what things matter given your own life experience and situation, these are all meaningless in the face of THE EXPERTS! /s When J.S. Mill wrote about infallibility[1], I can't remember if he wrote about outsourcing that infallibility belief to others, but if he did, he predicted the last 5 years of pro-censorship arguments perfectly. [1] htt…

I'm no expert in this domain, but the larger issue at play here is that:

1. certain groups are arguing for assigning trust to a group to perform case-by-case censorship as a countermeasure to propaganda and disinformation,

2. other groups (sometimes purposefully) misinterpreting this as blanket censorship and conjure up several slippery-slope warnings.

When talking about general things, it sounds very noble to talk about protecting every budding idea... therefore group #2 gets to trot around the higher moral ground when arguing in this way.

When talking about the specific ideas being "censored" (e.g. "immigrants eating dogs"), group #1 gets to claim group #2 is some flavor of crazy.

What both miss is that they have been pitted against each other by so many interest groups: nation-state and corporate.

This is happening all around the globe.

Post reply on HN