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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by spacechild1 »

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…

> We are also going to recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see.

Great, so more filter bubbles? They don't learn, or more likely, don't care.

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

#842

Post by ad_hockey »

gitaarik wrote: post #759
jimbokun wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some kind of analysis demonstrating Facebook fact checkers are more accurate than X’s Community Notes?

Indeed, how to fact check the fact checkers? If we could have legitimate fact checking that really works, then I guess we wouldn't need any politics at all.

> Indeed, how to fact check the fact checkers?

Like any other work, it can be reviewed by supervisors within the company and/or the client (Meta). If a sample of an employee's work shows that they often hide content that isn't factually false, they are performing their job poorly. If Meta doesn't like the job the company is doing, the contract can be cancelled.

> If we could have legitimate fact checking that really works, then I guess we wouldn't need any politics at all.

You absolutely need both. Politics is about which decisions to make within the context of shared facts. The amount of the US national debt, the number of people caught crossing the border illegally in 2024, or the number of people sleeping on the streets in San Francisco are all matters of fact. What to do about them is politics.

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

#843

Post by BryantD »

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 don’t think the fact-checkers were a better product feature in the current environment. I do think that the reasons they aren’t a good product feature are linked to a concerted effort to convince people to distrust fact-checkers. I recognize that many people would say the distrust arose from the way fact-checkers behaved; I don’t think that’s true.

From a product perspective, once it’s accepted that Community Notes go through an algorithmic filtering process (which they must), you have to accept that you’ve lost most potential for third party viewpoints. There is nothing stopping ideological companies from putting their thumbs on the scale.

Back to product perspective: that means there’s no barrier preventing Notes from losing trust in the same way fact checkers have. The playing field is not static.

I think the speed of the rollout will tell us a lot about how long this has been in the works. It’s not a one week feature, although I will remember that Meta produced Threads very quickly.

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

#844

Post by consp »

stronglikedan wrote: post #744
FireBeyond wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nancy Pelosi's husband's gay lover hammer attack? Diver rescuers being pedophiles?

[flagged]

These accusations are untrue until otherwise presented. Or is the burden of proof these days on the Innocent?

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

#845

Post by emberfiend »

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,…

Reddit already has this feature, although it might be underused. Set up a multireddit. Everything you want and nothing you don't. They are also not bottomless (well, more so if you stick to smaller subs), so if you don't put too many subs in your multi you can also hard-limit your feed time. They're great.

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

#846

Post by j45 »

harimau777 wrote: post #712
j45 wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps part of it is the optics that California is interpreting it for other places?

How is it any better for Texas to interpret it for other places?

Not saying it’s better for anywhere, only how California might be seen.

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

#847

Post by bobsomers »

spacechild1 wrote: post #841
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…

> We are also going to recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see. Great, so more filter bubbles? They don't learn, or more likely, don't care.

> They don't learn, or more likely, don't care.

Of course not. Enraged, uninformed people "engage", and that sells ads like hotcakes.

I don't know where people get this idea that Zuckerberg had any principles or gave a shit about anyone but himself. He's spineless, and his primary goal in life is has always been acquire as much wealth as possible by whatever means necessary.

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

#848

Post by thinkingemote »

spacechild1 wrote: post #841
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…

> We are also going to recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see. Great, so more filter bubbles? They don't learn, or more likely, don't care.

Filter bubbles are in. Blue sky and mastodon show that people want to self segregate. Even people remaining on Twitter are happy with the exodus.

Facebook is explicitly pro filter bubble. The community notes will come from your ingroup.

One irony is that diversity in online spaces leads to division. People no matter their politics and interests prefer people similar to them.

One way to look at this is by geography. Think of how a group of non English speaking Africans would talk together.

The other irony is that groups of people view the other groups as not similar to them and want to change them. It's always the outgroup that needs it's filter bubble bursting. It's always the other that is brainwashed.

So the downside of filter bubbles remain: more division, more separation between different people.

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

#849

Post by Glyptodon »

TBH I had assumed FB was just penalizing all political content or that people just tried like hell to avoid it because all I see on FB anymore is either stuff related to the few FB groups that keep me on the platform or endless reposts of basically pirated Reddit content for engagement.

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

#850

Post by netsharc »

raphman wrote: post #289
qingcharles wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Community Notes is the best thing about Musk's Dumpster fire. The problem with CN right now, though, is that Musk appears to block it on most of his posts, and/or right-wing moderators downvote the notes so they don't appear or disappear.

I am not so sure that Musk or right-wing moderators are directly to blame for the lack of published community notes. My guess: in recent months, many people (e.g., me) who are motivated to counter fake news have left Twitter for other platforms. Thus, proposed CNs are seen and upvoted by fewer people, resulting in fewer of them being shown to the public. Also, I ask myself: why should I spend time verifying or writin…

> the emperor knows that he is not wearing any clothes, and he does not care.

Indeed the ending of the famous story is:

> "But the Emperor has nothing at all on!" said a little child.

> "Listen to the voice of innocence!" exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was whispered from one to another.

> "But he has nothing at all on!" at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.

Post reply on HN