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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by verdverm »

nunobrito wrote: post #928
verdverm wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of us would be fine with some experimentation This is why ATProto is a great foundation for to the next generation of social media applications. It makes experimentation easier and open for all. It removes the cost of switching to the better alternatives. ATProto enables real competition on a single, common social media fabric.

No it isn't. The only implementation of ATProto so far has been heavily criticized for immediately blocking anyone with wrong opinions, while at the same permitting pedolovers post without much trouble (that butterfly logo is a well-known pedophile logo). More reports about the awful actions of bluesky/ATProto: https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-join-bluesky-face-abu...

The Bluesky pedo trope is a right wing falsehood, yet another piece of their misinformation agenda

ATProto is an open protocol, anyone can add content to the network. Bluesky is a company that operates the most used application, a micro logging platform like Twitter.

Musk Social has far more awful actions and far more awful personal posts by the oligarch himself. The "awful" thing of blocking trolls on Bluesky is what makes it a place with more and better engagement. We don't all need to read all the awful shit people write online in the name of "free speech". I have every right to ignore or remove content I don't like from my information diet. The benefit of ATProto is that if you don't agree with the content moderation policies of Bluesky, you can write just a different client (many already exist) and subscribe to different moderation providers (many already exist), all without having to rebuild your social followings

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

#932

Post by lisp2240 »

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…

Facebook has a long, bloody history of expanding their services into areas without investing in content moderation first. Sometimes they don’t have a single employee who can speak the language of their users. As a result, tens of thousands of people have died in genocide.

You can’t have community notes if you don’t already have a community established. Community notes won’t help if the community’s behavior is the problem.

Many people will die as a result of this decision.

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

#934

Post by sterlind »

devvvvvvv wrote: post #734
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…

[flagged]

except when it comes to banning books in schools. and prohibiting classroom discussions on race or LGBT topics.

somehow free speech never seems to cut both ways with these people.

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

#935

Post by aprilthird2021 »

gitaarik wrote: post #872
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is to do with anything about what people want. It's to do with the government. Meta has always, by necessity to some degree, gone with what the current US administration wants re: content moderation. This is the same thing. Do you really think the company which has openly admitted it wants to create AI profiles that post as if they're humans and not tell you they are AI care at all about facts or what yo…

Well yeah true, the decision is probably mostly made because of the change of government. The fact checking was pleasing the left, and now that the right has the power, this left-wing-propaganda thing has to go. But then is community notes right-wing? They could also have kept the fact checking system, but just alter the facts to please their agenda. But they didn't do that, they are replacing it with Community Notes…

> The fact checking was pleasing the left, and now that the right has the power, this left-wing-propaganda thing has to go.

Yes you understand. Meta, due to its problems with moderation over the years, both legal and political, has largely ceded direction of that to the government. Previous government wanted things like fact-checking, an oversight board for moderation decisions, and censorship of certain issues. Current government doesn't want any moderation at all, like X, the social media owned by Trump's biggest ally, which he personally loved so much that he created his own Twitter clone when he was booted off of Twitter. So in that environment, the easiest, simplest thing is to treat Meta platforms like X. That's all there is to it. It signals commitment to the new administration, it heaves political and legal pressure off Meta, etc. much more than your suggestion, that they keep fact-checking but bias it towards the right (which would need to be explained to the administration, etc.) Just saying "We're like X now" gets the point across most cleanly, and it's cheaper

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

#936

Post by freejazz »

raxxor wrote: post #897
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…

I don't know Dana White and I don't know any predecessor. It isn't really relevant though apart from which actions they indeed did take in their approach. Your second point about why people in Texas might be less biased is the distance to primary locations of tech companies perhaps? I don't think that it is convincing, but a lack of trust is the most severe problem of fact checkers. I believe the concept cannot work…

> I don't know Dana White

Oh, he runs the UFC and also the new slap fighting league. What that has to do with Facebook? I have no idea.

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

#937

Post by justin66 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #918
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the total national popular vote, Trump won by about 1%. That's not "resoundingly". That's a very thin margin. (I mean, it's better than he got in 2016 and 2020. But it's not resounding.)

It’s resounding because the expectations were that the nation’s voters were trending away from Republican politicians (or at least the popular vote), and the country was just waiting for old voters to die. But that was shown to be completely wrong, even after women lost rights in quite a few states. The message was clear that Republicans are here to stay, and businesses better learn how to do business with them, or e…

They barely scraped out a popular vote win. It's not a "resounding" victory, regardless of what you subjectively experience when you talk about it.

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

#938

Post by paulddraper »

benzible wrote: post #792
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…

How about the fact that Meta killing their fact-checking feature will have a very direct impact on the quality of Community Notes? Per today's Platformer: "Another wrinkle: many Community Notes current cite as evidence fact-checks created by the fact-checking organizations that Meta just canceled all funding for." ( https://www.platformer.news/meta-fact-checking-free-speech-s... )

I assume these businesses are ad supported.

Does Facebook’s patronage constitute a significant % of the industry?

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

#939

Post by grahamj »

tgma wrote: post #804
grahamj wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No because I don’t use these shit platforms. But the point is if policy says to moderate content of type ABC then I don’t see why someone in TX would do something different than someone in CA. It’s the same policy.

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

#940

Post by riffic »

blased wrote: post #647
riffic wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More accurately, the quote is "Reality has a well known liberal bias," and was given in the persona of a character Colbert played on an Comedy Central show and can be seen with a certain irony. https://en.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_we...

I think this reinforces my argument that liberals view it as indisputable that there is no bias in their favor in media and all their opinions are "merely reality."

well I think it's important to point out context and to be accurate with regard to the actual quote. imprecision with words leads to misinterpretation.

I'm not clear what your larger point is though or why you're singling out my comment with your rebuttal.

Post reply on HN