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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by steveoscaro »

autarch wrote: post #645

Asterisk just published an interview with the folks behind Community Notes at X (Twitter) - https://asteriskmag.com/issues/08/the-making-of-community-no... I don't use Twitter so I hadn't seen it in action, but the interview convinced me that this is a good approach. I think this approach makes sense for Facebook as well.

Thanks for sharing this. So many people commenting on this topic have no idea how community notes even works. Today's New York Times article also failed to explain it, while just giving a general negative tone to the idea of switching to this model.

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

#852

Post by steveoscaro »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #252
skillpass wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it “certainly a loss for users”? Many are likely to enjoy the ability to post without censorship on topics they care about.

Fact-checking and censorship are two very different things.

That sounds like a line from the CCP.

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

#853

Post by wtcactus »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #284
quantadev wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with "fact-checking" is that if it's done by humans at all then it will be heavily biased. With Silicon-Valley people being in charge of "fact-checking" for the past decade there's been countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true.

> countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true really? like what, exactly? please give concrete examples or this is just hot air

Suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by heavy censorship of any post about it on Facebook. For instance.

There's a high probability that heavily influenced the presidential 2020 election outcome.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs...

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

#854

Post by wtcactus »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #596
nxm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> when they were wrong quite often? citation please

There you go: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs...

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

#855

Post by wtcactus »

cmdli wrote: post #781
zahlman wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

So, you do now admit there are examples of official" fact-checkers being wrong?

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

#856

Post by wtcactus »

goshx wrote: post #117

I read this as Zuck kneeling to the new king and first lady (Musk). I highly doubt these changes were not influenced (forced?) by them.

Of course, that you can also read it as Zuck not having to kneel to the old king anymore.

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

#857

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#858

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #228
tptacek wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get how the partisan story is easy to tell here, but I'm saying something pretty specific: I think it would have been product development malpractice for this decision not to have been in the works for many, many months, long before the GOP takeover of the federal government was a safe bet. Community Notes has been that successful, and Facebook's fact-checkers have been that much of a product disaster. I've never s…

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.

[deleted]

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

#859

Post by guax »

thinkingemote wrote: post #848
spacechild1 wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

For me the major breaking change on social media is the forcing of non linear timelines. They're required to increase engagement and promoting content but thats the crux of the issue.

I liked the way early twitter worked, I have my bubble being the people I follow and I can see glimpses of the outside from the trending topics and what comes in as retweets, news, etc. Being able to see a thread without being logged in. Seeing analysis of people from the firehose showing different ways to see conversations and the bubbles.

I miss the fact that old tweets died, things had to be relevant to humans to be rekindled, meaning someone had to retweet to keep it alive instead of an algorithm deciding whats important for me based on how outrageous it is.

Bubbles are unavoidable, bubbles decided by algorithms are the worse of all alternatives.

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

#860

Post by tikkabhuna »

thinkingemote wrote: post #848
spacechild1 wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

Isn't there a difference between self-segregation and filter bubbles and how they're perceived?

If I go to a woodworking class, I won't be surprised to see people who like woodworking. If I go to the supermarket and everyone is talking about and liking woodworking, I start thinking that everyone likes woodworking.

A user explicitly signing up to specific topics are opting into a discussion. Filter bubbles are implicit.

Post reply on HN