971–980 of 1001 posts
The effectiveness of Community Notes is up to debate. Though I personally have seen some really brutally honest or hillarious fact checks (check out Community Notes Violations on Twitter) but I still feel it can be brigaded by trolls to say the inverse is the truth. I have an anecdotal example from recent memory which on a post of someone commenting on the new Superman trailer, with a shot of Corenswet as Clark Kent gushing about how much he looked like Superman. I saw a humorous community note on that post that claimed the person in the image is not Superman but Clark Kent and they are separate people.
To me this raises the question, couldn't Community Notes potentially be overwhelmed by trolls to claim a falsehood as the truth for more nefarious reasons (this may have happened already, though I have not seen it yet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a product decision taken independently, maybe. Running one of those things at scale with all kinds of people trying to subvert it for various reasons, including some downright evil ones, is not an easy task. Announced together with everything else and given the timing, I just can't help but think there's a political component to all of it.
> I just can't help but think there's a political component to all of it. "We're moving to Texas to eliminate perceptions of bias" is the biggest giveaway of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I suggest you consider looking how much it costs to go through the legal system, as it seems your assertion is based in a theoretical understanding of our system. Filing a civil suit can be pretty expensive if you want a lawyer -- which, yes, you do effectively need one. This is effectively a tax on the victims of harassment.
Obviously I don't know which legal system you are talking about - but it does raise the issue of cross-boundary jurisdiction which I think is more of a potential challenge.
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 pro…
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…
> 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. Zuckerberg's framing of this as being about "fact checking" is intentional misdirection. Very little checking of facts was actually happening. This is about moderation . Specifically, reducing the obstacles to posting racist/misogynist/political abuse amd threats. The objective…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, I don't think that lens is useful. It appears to me that the genocide very likely may not have occurred -- and certainly would have harmed fewer people -- if Facebook didn't exist. It is not simply a matter of it happening elsewhere on the internet -- Myanmar is one of the countries that Facebook provided its Free Basics package to. Of course, I think the bulk of the blame lays on those actively perpetrating the…
The genocide also wouldn't have occurred if the internet wasn't available, or if air/water didn't exist, etc I think blaming the medium for communication is a bit silly. That is just the substrate. The responsibility solely lies with the murderers.
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…
> like people being in Texas makes them more objective?! This is the least charitable interpretation. Obviously, it is not talking about a single person moving to Texas suddenly changing colors like a chameleon (although I suspect there is quite a bit of merit to that due to groupthink and community speech policing in BayArea/LA). And yes, I think it won't be a stretch to think Texas would be more objective represent…
But... how?