Live data from Hacker News

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

about.fb.com

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the word for delay in French is offensive in English It's also the word for delay in English.

I've only ever seen it used to mean "delay" in occasional technical contexts, e.g. "fire retardant material", in practice it seems to be mostly a noun that means "stupid person".

The words have the same meaning - "person with slowed down intellectual development"

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

#343

I'm certain it will make parts of the user experience worse, but at least for the Threads app, this seems at least a little necessary - if you're aiming to be the "new" twitter or whatever social need twitter was fulfilling, you need to break free of the shackles of IG/Meta moderation, which is very unforgiving and brutal in very subtle ways that aren't always easy to figure out. But basically, I find a platform like…

I once posted a picture of an email stating my train was delayed in French. So the word 'retard' appeared in it. Instagram banned me from monetization or partnerships or something on my account, because the word for delay in French is offensive in English.

Some time around 2011, the Apple App store was warning me about rude words in the app description; unfortunately it was warning me about the German word "Knopf" which isn't rude. I think what happened is the English rude word list was translated into German, rather than just replaced with local rude words.

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

#345
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…

> "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 FB office in Austin, Texas is a moderately left-leaning area. Their office in Silicon Valley is about the most extreme left-wing place in the country. At the v…

Thinking Menlo Park (or any of Silicon Valley, really) is in any way "extreme left-wing" is a sure indication you haven't spent any time there and are basing your viewpoints off of what others have said on social media. Billion dollar corporations by definition do not support anything remotely "extreme left-wing".

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

#346
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only ever seen it used to mean "delay" in occasional technical contexts, e.g. "fire retardant material", in practice it seems to be mostly a noun that means "stupid person".

The words have the same meaning - "person with slowed down intellectual development"

"Developing intellect slowly" implies they're going to reach full intelligence at some point.

"Retard" means "thick", in this context, not "will get there eventually".

The technical definition is not how the euphemism is used.

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

#347

I'm certain it will make parts of the user experience worse, but at least for the Threads app, this seems at least a little necessary - if you're aiming to be the "new" twitter or whatever social need twitter was fulfilling, you need to break free of the shackles of IG/Meta moderation, which is very unforgiving and brutal in very subtle ways that aren't always easy to figure out. But basically, I find a platform like…

I once posted a picture of an email stating my train was delayed in French. So the word 'retard' appeared in it. Instagram banned me from monetization or partnerships or something on my account, because the word for delay in French is offensive in English.

Same would probably happen when talking in a video about the French theorem proofer called Coq.

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once posted a picture of an email stating my train was delayed in French. So the word 'retard' appeared in it. Instagram banned me from monetization or partnerships or something on my account, because the word for delay in French is offensive in English.

This is different than the fact-checking, and has to do with automated moderation algorithms (which generally suck), which are continuing (because advertisers want them).

Yes, it is, but the salient point that I felt was clear in that post was to demonstrate that these systems don't work well, and that such systems have such a poor understanding of context and circumventions as to be rendered ineffective if not totally counterproductive. I'm fully aware such mechanisms aren't going anywhere, right now, but at least Meta is acknowledging the fact that at present, they aren't really providing the user experience they intended.

That aside, I find it offensive a little bit that Meta has taken it upon themselves to decide what the "right" discourse is that their users want to see, and would rather they create a mechanism to let users decide for themselves - which this does at least outwardly appear to be a move towards. They've also in the last few years toned down or removed some of the auto-modding in private groups, and shifted that responsibility towards its community members and moderators - which was also a similarly good step.

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

#349
post #333
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…

You forgot the biggest one – replacing Nick Clegg as their global policy chief with Joel Kaplan, a Republican lobbyist.

Seems like not the biggest one? That seems like the kind of role you take knowing you're going to hold it only so long as you have a rapport with the current governing majorities.

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

#350
post #4

What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because 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 represent…

> I think this is a big win for Meta, because 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. Strong disagree. This is a very naive understanding of the situation. "Fact-checking" by users is just more of the kind of shouting back and forth that these social networks are already full of. That's why a third-party…

But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? Isn't that like, authoritarian?

"Fact-checking" completely removed the ability for debate and is therefore antithetical to a functional democracy. Pushing back against authority, because they are often dead wrong, is foundational to a free society. It's hard to imagine anything more authoritarian than "No I don't have to debate because I'm a fact-checker and by that measure alone you're wrong and I'm right". Very Orwellian indeed!

Additionally, the number of times that I've observed "fact-checkers" lying thru their teeth for obvious political reasons is absurd.

Post reply on HN