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

51–60 of 1001 posts

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

#51

Post by dmazin »

spencerflem wrote: post #47
dmazin wrote: post #38

As a leftist, while this is concerning, it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. So, while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith (what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?), this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.

You know that this announcement is made to win favor with Trump. I would not expect that leftism will be any more allowed

I agree. At the very least, it's using Trump as cover.

That said, if they remove the political filter, they're opening the door for all discussion (even from the left).

Of course, they could surreptitiously filter out the left. Hell, why not?

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

#52

Post by bamboozled »

phatfish wrote: post #20
saxonww wrote: 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…

> 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. Or maybe such people have far better things to do than fact check concern trolls and paid propagandists.

I pay for some news subscriptions now. I actually love it. Read it, support journalism , log off. Done.

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

#53

Post by kcplate »

hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #6
raxxor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think internet discussion worked far better without fact checkers, where some of them cannot really be called accurate. The community notes are the better approach. They aren't always correct either, but it certainly is the better fit for freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Fact checkers are the authority approach that just does not fit.

I haven't seen a single discussion be worse off due to fact checking, but I've seen tons of discussions where having it would improve things. I have seen people get mad because they can't post BS without it being challenged. To claim internet discussion worked better without fact checking is something I haven't seen any actual evidence for, just opinions like yours. Community notes is just a watered down, more easily…

Exposure to many viewpoints, including wrong ones, provides a counterbalancing effect. When you actively try and suppress information you create a “forbidden knowledge” effect where people seek out silos where extreme and wrongheaded information gets passed without the “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—-it grows faster…becomes more wrong, more extreme, and more dangerous.

Seems to me in my experience after decades of watching and participating in online discussion extremism really only became more problematic when fact checking and active efforts to suppress took hold. Whatever the good intentions may have been, the results were worse.

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

#54

Post by oliviergg »

Zuck claims "Europe has an ever increasing number of laws,institutionalizing censorship and making difficult to build something innovative" Ouch. As a European, I feel very wary of such a sentence and the implications. Time for Europe to wake up ? (edit: fix typos)

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

#55

Post by MrMcCall »

paxys wrote: post #40

FYI Meta just removed Nick Clegg as their global head of policy and replaced him with Joel Kaplan, who was Trump's deputy chief of staff. They also appointed Dana White, a prominent Trump supporter, to their board this week. Their content moderation team is moving from California to Texas. If people think all this is Meta going "neutral", you are delusional.

You have gotten to the heart of the matter. Well done, indeed, sir/madam!

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

#56

Post by mint2 »

Volundr wrote: post #32

As far as I can tell they gave up moderation a few years ago, at least every time I report someone spamming about "Elon Musk giving away a million dollars if you click this shady link" or the like I invariably get told it meets their "community standards" and won't be removed. I guess technically I haven't seen a female nipple there though so, job well done?

They also allow the scammiest ads for products that are 100% obvious frauds - pure distilled snake oil. It really brings meta’s image to the dirt. They’re like an online super market tabloid these days.

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

#57

Post by BryantD »

philjohn wrote: post #22

They've also said there will be more harmful (but legal) content on there as they'll no longer automatically look for it, but require it to be reported before taking action. As someone who worked on harmful content, specifically suicide and self injury, this is just nuts - they were raked over the coals in both the UK by an inquest into the suicide of a teenage user who rabbit holed on this harmful content, and also…

This exactly mirrors my thoughts, although I don't work in your field. One quote:

"For example, in December 2024, we removed millions of pieces of content every day. While these actions account for less than 1% of content produced every day, we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes (i.e., the content may not have actually violated our policies)."

That is first order data and it's interesting. However, before making policy decisions, I would want the second order data: what is the human cost of those mistakes, and what percentage of policy-violating content will not be removed as a result of these changes? Finally, what's the cost of not removing that percentage?

For that matter, by talking about the percentage of active mistakes without saying how many policy violations are currently missed, you're framing the debate in a certain direction.

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

#59

Post by bhouston »

jjulius wrote: post #21

If you think this move exists in a vacuum or is actually about "getting back to their roots with free speech", you're wrong. Alongside Dana White joining the board[0], it's clear that this is solely about currying favor with the incoming administration. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/06/nx-s1-5250310/meta-dana-white...

100%. It is about aligning with Trump's political opinions. Thus I do expect to see no fact checking of anti-trans, anti-vaccine and anti-immigrant content. But I don't think that Meta's documented censorship of Palestinian content [1] will change, because the censorship is inline with Trump's political opinions.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...

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

#60

Post by macNchz »

incomingpain wrote: post #27

>Ending Third Party Fact Checking Program, Moving to Community Notes CNotes were extremely successful on X. The problem with censorship, why digg and reddit died as platforms, you end up with second order consequences. The anti-free speech people will always deeply analyze their opponent's speech to find a violation of the rules. They try to make rules that sound reasonable but are beyond section 230. No being anti-L…

> CNotes were extremely successful on X.

> reddit died

By all measures I can find, reddit continues to grow year over year, while X seems to have been flat or in decline, so I’m not sure this is a strong premise.

Post reply on HN