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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by benatkin »

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…

How convenient it would be for the social media network if people tended not to blame them. I just watched Zuckerberg say that he's glad about the "free expression" that could happen because of Facebook, and these genocidal posts getting boosted by the algorithm are an example of this. What is missing on Facebook is actual free expression, of people seeing posts from people they follow, including small business owners who would like to reach their customers.

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

#982

Post by benatkin »

From the video:

> drugs, terrorism, child exploitiation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide doesn't fit neatly into any of those, but it does fit more into immigration, at least in the rhetoric (the Rohingya have long been present in Myanmar but have been denied citizenship by the government):

> We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate.

...and in Facebook's warped views, the ones that permitted the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, that means ready to be boosted by the algorithm.

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

#983

Post by gitaarik »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #603
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ending because the government that encouraged fact checking is ending. The new one has made it clear they despise fact checkers

Right. And you know what type of government really despises fact checkers? Autocratic / oligarchic governments (Russia, China, etc.)

I think Russia would love to have control over a group of supposedly "fact-checkers" to manipulate their citizens.

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

#984

Post by arielcostas »

zahlman wrote: post #730
arielcostas wrote: post #19

Zuck's video claims Europe has been imposing a lot of censorship lately, which is a nicer way for him to say "we have done a crappy job at stopping misinformation and abusive material, got fined A LOT by countries who actually care about it, and that's somehow not our fault". Community notes is good news, and something I was expecting to disappear from Twitter since Elon bought it a couple years ago, especially since…

Why should social media operators be responsible for "stopping misinformation" in the first place? That sounds a lot like the logic that was used to justify smashing the printing presses in Gutenberg's day, not to mention by countless villains of dystopian sci-fi (e.g. Fahrenheit 451), in turn based on other real-world concerns. I think I should have a right to let others lie to me, and decide for myself if I believe…

> It's really strange to me how calls for banning "misinformation" in the US seem to come from the same political direction as complaints about controversial books being taken out of educational curricula.

I'm not in (or from) the US, I'm european and probably "more used to" regulation :). Thing is, banning misinformation isn't the solution, but the artificial algorithm should stop recommending accounts that keep feeding fake news to people, since community notes take a while to appear.

Or some indicator like "this account's posts has received a lot of community notes in the last 30 days, please take what this tweet says with a grain of salt". Young people keep getting feed far-right bullshit, which is the reason a party like Se Acabó La Fiesta (Alvise Perez) got to the European parliament in the first place, because he kept posting fake stuff, and until the justice ruled otherwise, people would just believe it. Because unfortunately, many people aren't able to "do their thinking" because of confirmation bias. "They say what I want to hear, so it must be true".

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

#985

Post by intended »

zahlman wrote: post #827
intended wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didnt Musk imply that the ex head of Twitter T&S was a pedophile The exact tweet being - “ looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis.” Or this one where he accused his disabled employee ? (using community notes to make the point no less) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1633011448459964417?ref_src=tw...

From the sources I could find quickly to refresh my memory: > Over the weekend, Musk shared some of Roth’s past tweets and what appears to be an excerpt from his PhD thesis about Grindr, the LGBTQ social media app. Roth is quoted as saying that the app is possibly too “lewd or hook-up-oriented” for people under age 18 who are already using it, but that providers should “focus on creating safe strategies … for queer y…

Hey, all I asked is whether Musk implied he was a pedophile. I never said the dissertation didn’t exist.

I’m sorry you took the effort to prove that point, however can you hold me responsible for that point? I was just asking a question.

Isn’t the way you interpret those sentences your issue? Not mine?

> The idea that this observation constitutes an accusation of pedophilia is 100% media spin, and does not reflect Musk's words.

It surely doesn’t reflect Musk’s exact words.

I dont know what you mean about media spin.

I do know that people took those words to imply he was a pedophile. Which is why they went out to teach him a lesson, threatening him, harassing him and hounding him. I mean, who would let a censoring pedophile be?

And it’s not Musk’s fault people did that, anyone who reads his sentence will see he clearly doesn’t mean that Roth is a pedophile.

That’s the fault of the people who can’t read correctly! Like how can I be held responsible if you didn’t understand me.

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

#986

Post by gitaarik »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #619
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it absurd? Journalists don’t think their job is to be neutral. They are among the most biased. They abuse the trust given to them, which is why they don't deserve it. Community notes allows a diversity of opinions to compete, which is a better way to seek truth.

you're confusing fact checking with forum discussions and social media posts

You are giving too much trust to a small authority group to determine what the "facts" are for the rest of the people.

If these "facts" are so obviously facts, we wouldn't need a team of researchers to establish the fact whether they are facts.

The fact that these "facts" need to be "fact-checked" means they are so open to interpretation and depend on context, that we came to the conclusion that this "fact-checking" concept in fact does not really work.

You can still "fact-check" for yourself; do your own research, make up your own mind yourself. Then you will become more of an independent thinker, be less influenced by authoritarian figures.

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

#987

Post by foldr »

zahlman wrote: post #649
bsder wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is a cheap political gotcha accompanied by a litany of unevidenced and vague allegations against a political out-group (which "particular group"? On what basis do you assert that "some AI somewhere" is involved, and why would that matter? Not to mention the tired "dog whistle" cliche) and a demand for self-censorship. You've also made a bold claim about the relevant statistics without any kind of citation. My un…

They are talking about the following, not ‘top’ surgery for trans men/boys:

https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/press-releases/male-brea...

While the page is obviously not unbiased about the benefits of this surgery, you can infer from the number of patients included in just one study that it’s very common. Yet this particular irreversible surgery performed on children does not seem to be causing a moral panic.

The broader point, which I think you’ve not picked up on, is that most people are fine with gender affirming care for children as long as the children are cis - which is arguably a double standard.

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

#988

Post by zahlman »

arielcostas wrote: post #984
zahlman wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should social media operators be responsible for "stopping misinformation" in the first place? That sounds a lot like the logic that was used to justify smashing the printing presses in Gutenberg's day, not to mention by countless villains of dystopian sci-fi (e.g. Fahrenheit 451), in turn based on other real-world concerns. I think I should have a right to let others lie to me, and decide for myself if I believe…

> It's really strange to me how calls for banning "misinformation" in the US seem to come from the same political direction as complaints about controversial books being taken out of educational curricula. I'm not in (or from) the US, I'm european and probably "more used to" regulation :). Thing is, banning misinformation isn't the solution, but the artificial algorithm should stop recommending accounts that keep fee…

I think that most people with non-mainstream views understand that their views are not mainstream, and will be quite willing to ignore community notes. But your idea generally has merit; an automated system trying to predict how content will be rated by third parties seems much better than having it try to do the rating itself.

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

#989

Post by immibis »

curtisblaine wrote: post #826
toss1 wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was in the works for a long time, then Zuckerberg has been planning to bend the knee to Trump for a long time. Today, Trump in press conference (video at [0]: Q: "Do you think Zuckerberg is responding to the threats you've made to him in the past?" TRUMP: "Probably. Yeah. Probably." This tells us all we need to know. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with yielding to political pressure to ben…

Autocracts doesn't get democratically elected, as far as I understand. Trump is a democratically elected leader who will end his term at most in 2028. Autocracts tend to not be democratically elected (or to change the rules once they're elected to never be deposed). Zuckerberg will bend his knee to the Democrats if they win next term. This is not autocracy, this is just knowing where the wind blows.

Most autocrats in history have been democratically elected or inherited their position from other autocrats who were.

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

#990

Post by edgarischatting »

_thisdot wrote: post #902
astolarz wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Social media sites should give users an explicit lever to see political content or not Facebook does sorta have this, under Settings & Privacy > Content Preferences > Manage defaults. Note that the only options for "Political content" are "Show more" and "Default". The other categories listed also include "Show less". There is no "off" option for any of the categories.

IIRC, Political Content is by default restricted on Threads. But if someone you follow engages with or posts content that is political in nature, fb doesn't hide that for you

Just fyi, this is no longer the case on Threads based on this statement from yesterday:

https://www.threads.net/@mosseri/post/DEk65TJTXcQ?xmt=AQGzmI...

Post reply on HN