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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by DrScientist »

HPsquared wrote: post #889
DrScientist wrote: post #888

The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back…

If it's worth doing it should happen naturally, verified accounts having more weight in the eyes of readers etc.

I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure - doesn't it depend where the incentives come from?

Optimising simply for demand without any principles leads to things like street fentanyl, and junk food and mass shootings ( there is a demand to own assault rifles ).

Online right now there is a heady mix of large monetary incentives and the ability to rapidly optimise objective functions.

Let's not pretend Meta's recent change isn't simply about Zuckerberg maintaining his power.

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

#892

Post by DrScientist »

DecoySalamander wrote: post #890
DrScientist wrote: post #888

The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back…

The only thing that removing anonymity would do is make it easier to harass people with dissenting opinions. Professional bad actors can switch to posting under "real people" names, just as spammers now post from home IP proxies.

I share your concern - however harassing people is illegal and if you can't be anonymous to do it then that's also much less likely.

I don't buy favourite argument of the US gun lobby - that only criminals ( yes by definition ) would have guns/anonymous accounts if you banned it therefore we shouldn't do anything.

You could apply that to anything that's illegal - by definition only criminals are outside the law - so why any laws at all?

I'd also be concerned about repressive governments - but I think you could distinguish between mass/public communication and private 1:1 communication. Just like in the real world there is a whole world of difference between saying something in private and publishing something in a national newspaper.

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

#893

Post by jiriknesl »

DrScientist wrote: post #888

The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back…

Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online.

On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive.

Now, when sharing data online is cheaper and cheaper, this limiting factor is fading away.

--

At the same time, we have just 16 hours of attention per day. So you have to decide whether you want to invest your time in more curated publishing (I read a lot of books, often old books which stood the test of time), or if you want to go to the public square where practically anyone can shout as he sees fit. I do that too, but I try to moderate both my time using social media and what I see there. And I am proud I haven't used TikTok, I stopped using Facebook, Instagram, I don't watch any Reels, Shorts, etc.

So publishers still are not lost, but what they are selling is not curation because of technological limitations, but because of limits of how much we can read and see in the day.

--

At the same time, publishers are biased. They publish what they see as high quality. They publish what they consider worthy. They publish things they would want to read. And they have publication checklists that prohibit publishing certain things even if they are true.

Public squares don't have such an attribute.

There are things to be published and heard, even when mainstream people would disagree. There are things that should be public, even when it's against a law in certain countries.

And online anonymity mixed with public square enables people to tell about atrocities that happen, or about corruption, government inefficiencies, about people breaking human rights and so on.

--

If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. Because publishers don't play this role any more. They are biased, people realize it and are fed of it.

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

#894

Post by DrScientist »

jiriknesl wrote: post #893
DrScientist wrote: post #888

The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back…

Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Now, when sharing data online is cheaper and cheaper, this limiting factor is fading away. -- At the same time, we have just 16 hours of attention per day. So you hav…

> Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online.

I'd believe that if they didn't promote or suppress content - in my view as soon as you get into that game you become part of the publishing process.

> On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive.

Eh? Publishers take care of what they publish because they are responsible for it in law - if they publish a lie about somebody ( even if it's a quote from somebody else - ie somebody elses 'content' ) - they are on the hook for that.

In a similar way, if I defame you and then a newspaper/facebook promotes that around the world, most of the damage actually comes from the promotion of the original defamation - the publishing/amplification.

> If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback.

You are already assuming we live in a society where people are too afraid to say what they think in public . And I would also argue if you stand on a soap box in a public square then you are not anonymous - you are public. You are confusing a public square with people whispering behind masks.

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

#895

Post by raxxor »

nicce wrote: post #165
hintymad wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content moderators judge content subjectively, labeling perfect discussions as misinformation, hate speech, and etc. That's where the censorship starts.

> That's where the censorship starts. It also starts when there is no third-party anymore. Where is the middle line?

I do not follow, I do not believe this is correct. Third parties introduce the censorship.

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

#897

Post by raxxor »

davidw wrote: post #212
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…

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 though, especially if I look at the broader context.

No, user feedback is the better control mechanism. Also these fact checkers would never be independent and they would develop their own interest for even more moderation. They would never report that there isn't any more controversial content to be checked, because that is their raison d'être from day one.

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

#898

Post by biosboiii »

jarsin wrote: post #133
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…

I've already seen disturbing stuff on X since Elon took over that I never would have seen when it was twitter. They don't even show the warning "this might be harmful content" on images and videos anymore. The X algo seems to go haywire every couple of days and dumps a bunch of this crap in my feed until I block 20+ bluecheck accounts showing this crap. I believe it's only going to get worse going forward as they all…

My profile is largely unused, I follow no one, and like 1/3 times I open up the front page I get straight holocaust denial threads suggested. Completely insane.

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

#899

Post by ausbah »

pasimm wrote: post #515
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.

> while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith Not really though. It means that feminist campaigners can advocate for single-sex spaces and services without the looming threat of being banned. This is great news and a win for free speech.

there are plenty of TERFs on Meta’s platforms already

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

#900

Post by ausbah »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #801
lifeinthevoid wrote: post #799

It’s funny to see these tech moguls bend the knee for the new king. All their values, their so called care for the community, everything they say, everything, … is just all a big play in an effort to make as much money as they can. It sickens me to watch this stuff unfold.

It’s not just a new king, it was the fact that the other party won the popular vote resoundingly after all these years meant that the 2016 elections weren’t just a fluke. Repubs have all 3 branches for at least a few years now, and there will be enormous changes in tax policy in legislation that will be passed this year, due to many popular provisions of the 2017 TCJA expiring at the end of 2025. And Dems will basica…

- the house majority is a thin 1-2 seats and full of factions that can barely cooperate

- the filibuster still exists

- almost certain one or both houses flip in 2 years

Post reply on HN