31 ms·

The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the check

The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the checkees. When you're fact checking random people or journalists that may or may not be true, but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ? What are the fact checker's credentials, and most importantly what is their track record? The extreme opaqueness of the process is certainly not an encouraging signal.

gadders 5y ago
I think they are mostly journalists that couldn't get hired on at a major newspaper.
- GameOfFrowns 5y ago
  >I think they are mostly journalists that couldn't get hired on at a major newspaper. Brutal.
- syshum 5y ago
  So this would imply they are trustworthy and dedicated to the truth, because we know major newspapers are neither trustworthy nor have any connection with the truth these days
  - gadders 5y ago
    Or maybe just not as good at writing?
  - pdpi 5y ago
    You could just as easily say “wow, if not even those untrustworthy major newspapers will hire them, they really must play fast and loose with the truth”.
- octoberfranklin 5y ago
  We could use more reporters and fewer journalists.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  Why do you think that?
wolframhempel 5y ago
It's true, there are fundamental problems with the concept of "fact-checking". Often the "fact" is just the majority consent, as e.g., demonstrated by the banning of the Wuhan lab leak theory prior to it becoming mainstream. But more broadly, there is a stark imbalance between the resources of the fact-checker (a few minutes or hours to decide) and the author who (e.g. in this case) conducted a month-long, in-depth investigation. The same is true for the author who can be highly specialized in a given topic and the fact-checker who necessarily has to check a wide range of content. Given that, "fact-checking" necessarily has to be overly broad and erring on the side of censorship.
- jakobnissen 5y ago
  Did Facebook really censor the lab leak idea? Last I checked, Facebook only censored the idea that the virus was manufactured, not that it merely leaked - and that theory is still fringe.
  - logifail 5y ago
    When Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet letter which was published in February 2020 it pretty much shut down any open discussion of origins. "It's of natural origin, or you're a conspiracy theorist". It took the Lancet 16 months(!) to publish a conflict of interest statement revealing that Daszak was linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance.
    - ErrolMusk 5y ago
      Facebook HIRED Peter Daszak as a 'factchecker' and allowed him to REMOVE anything that suggested the virus came from a lab. As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime. Facebook ENABLED this coverup
      - bipson 5y ago
        > As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime. > Facebook ENABLED this coverup. Wat? How is this not considered a conspiracy theory? 5 comments down an article that discusses fact checking... Hm, maybe my sarcasm-meter is off by a notch again. dunno.
cblconfederate 5y ago
The idea behind "fact checking" is that facebook wants to push the burden for the crap they broadcast to someone else, and it works, lawmakers go along with it.
emmelaich 5y ago
This what gets me. Zuck is a well educated fella. He must know this is wrong. Why is this happening? Has he lost control of Facebook? Is he not interested?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > He must know this is wrong. It's entirely possible to be well educated and amoral, either via genuine inability to comprehend or simply not caring.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    We know for a fact that FB leadership regularly discussed ripping off smaller companies business ideas (ie, Snapchat [0]. Not a sign of moral people. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/17/theftovation-facebook-likes-copying-ideas/id=86916/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/17/theftovation-facebook-...
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Ripping off business ideas is an aspect of competition (BK versus McDonalds), not sure it is related to morals…
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        Sorry, what? If I share an mp3 the record industry demands ridiculous compensation. If I steal a paragraph in a college exam and get caught, I'm sent home without credit or refund. If I sell a drawing of a certain cartoon mouse, or draw a red shirt on Pooh, I can literally go to jail. ... But if I invest my life savings to start a company based on an insightful idea and read of the market, a trillion dollar company can rip me off wholesale and people will call it "business" and "not related to morals"? Please tell me that sounds as batshit insane to you as it does to me.
b112 5y ago
What really bugs me here is, everyone yells at facebook, saying it is spreading propaganda, lies, societal harm, etc. Then, fact checking is attempted, and people claim censorship, an imperfect job, and the idea that "How dare they!" I literally loath, hate, and despise facebook. But come on, they're only doing this because everyone piled on them, claiming they must fact check and validate things. If I was facebook, twitter, or google seeking this, I'd rightly think that listening to people is dumb, and they should just ignore them.
- etherael 5y ago
  They should indeed just ignore them, free speech wasn't arrived at as an optimal path by accident. Nothing changed to make it not-optimal. People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. The information streams of the world should not be tailored to the critical thinking ability of complete morons. It blows my mind we went from "trying to censor cop killer is a bridge too far no matter the merits of doing so" to "you can't say things that compromise the interests of powerful individuals, offend the chronically sheltered, or that might confuse the braindead under any circumstances" just in my lifetime. Free speech seemed absolutely unassailable in my youth and has been completely destroyed relative to that in present day. What the fuck happened?
  - metabagel 5y ago
    Trump happened
    - etherael 5y ago
      The censorship was well underway before Trump, at best it accelerated it.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    > People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. Sure, free speech is optimal if this happens. But what if it doesn't happen? People are extremely irrational [0], and that certainly won't change anytime soon. What changed is that we got better at exploiting that irrationality at scale. There's no practical value in stating "in an ideal world, free speech is the solution". We don't live in that world, and we don't get any closer to it by complaining on HN about people not doing enough critical thinking. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Spooky23 5y ago
It’s not fact checking… it’s a spam filter style that slaps a warning label on things that could allows Facebook to say they did something. No different than warning labels on cigarettes or really boring commercials from the NFL urging you to not gamble too much.
aa-jv 5y ago
Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation". Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them.
- ewidar 5y ago
  It might be true for the fact checking groups described here, but to state that as a general case is incorrect. > Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation". Fact checking at its core is about analysing assertions that can be objectively verified. Fact checking must bring forth strong references/sources or proofs to either go in or against the initial assertions. > Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them. If a fact checker does not provide this kind of info, then yes, it does not seem very trustworthy. Although you could still evaluate them based on the sources they are using for their fact checking. But, obviously, it does not have to be the case. Fact checkers can and will provide info about their funding, affiliations, composition, etc... As an example, you can take a look at the FAQ of this fact checker that was active during the French presidential election of 2017 https://crosscheck.firstdraftnews.org/france-en/faq/ https://crosscheck.firstdraftnews.org/france-en/faq/ : As you can see, they clearly state that they received funds from Google News to set things up. They also share details about their partners, members, etc.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    > Fact checking at its core is about analysing assertions that can be objectively verified. "Missing context" does not meet this standard of objective verification. Many fact-checking desks and organizations dish out Pinocchios in cases where the "proper context" is political/ideological.
    - 8note 5y ago
      If the proper ideological context is "we want to go to war with Iraq" The statement "Iraq has WMDs" switches from false to true Similarly, "we want to go to war with China" vs "we don't want to go to war with China" switches "the virus is a lab leak" to "the virus is not a lab leak"
secondaryacct 5y ago
It's like if you were bemoaning children were taught by teachers rather than figure it out on their own. A bad teacher is better than no teacher, a bad censor is better than your grandma telling my kid virii dont exist :p
- causalmodels 5y ago
  Is a bad teacher better than no teacher? My parents had to pull my brother out of third grade because his teacher routinely picked on and harassed him, even going so far as to give him an in school suspension for talking back because they refused to believe "sphere" was a word even after being shown numerous dictionary entries.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
intended 5y ago
From What I know - Meta added fact checkers because historically they were being used to host conspiracy and worse.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I remember when Jeffry Epstein's sex trafficking was just a conspiracy. Good times.
cplusplusfellow 5y ago
I have some small trouble believing that the fact checking is in fact, checking facts. They are checking narrative.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Narrative Enforcement
raxxorrax 5y ago
> but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ Because they are his fact checkers. It isn't an argument against Zuckerberg or a condemnation, this is just the obvious explanation. Whoever came up with the concept of fact checkers plainly wanted to establish some form of authoritative voice or judge. I believe the concept is futile and the motives often dishonest. It will not work for whatever reason though.

gadders 5y ago

I think they are mostly journalists that couldn't get hired on at a major newspaper.

GameOfFrowns 5y ago
>I think they are mostly journalists that couldn't get hired on at a major newspaper. Brutal.
syshum 5y ago
So this would imply they are trustworthy and dedicated to the truth, because we know major newspapers are neither trustworthy nor have any connection with the truth these days
- gadders 5y ago
  Or maybe just not as good at writing?
- pdpi 5y ago
  You could just as easily say “wow, if not even those untrustworthy major newspapers will hire them, they really must play fast and loose with the truth”.
octoberfranklin 5y ago
We could use more reporters and fewer journalists.
CoastalCoder 5y ago
Why do you think that?

wolframhempel 5y ago

It's true, there are fundamental problems with the concept of "fact-checking". Often the "fact" is just the majority consent, as e.g., demonstrated by the banning of the Wuhan lab leak theory prior to it becoming mainstream. But more broadly, there is a stark imbalance between the resources of the fact-checker (a few minutes or hours to decide) and the author who (e.g. in this case) conducted a month-long, in-depth investigation. The same is true for the author who can be highly specialized in a given topic and the fact-checker who necessarily has to check a wide range of content. Given that, "fact-checking" necessarily has to be overly broad and erring on the side of censorship.

jakobnissen 5y ago
Did Facebook really censor the lab leak idea? Last I checked, Facebook only censored the idea that the virus was manufactured, not that it merely leaked - and that theory is still fringe.
- logifail 5y ago
  When Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet letter which was published in February 2020 it pretty much shut down any open discussion of origins. "It's of natural origin, or you're a conspiracy theorist". It took the Lancet 16 months(!) to publish a conflict of interest statement revealing that Daszak was linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance.
  - ErrolMusk 5y ago
    Facebook HIRED Peter Daszak as a 'factchecker' and allowed him to REMOVE anything that suggested the virus came from a lab. As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime. Facebook ENABLED this coverup
    - bipson 5y ago
      > As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime. > Facebook ENABLED this coverup. Wat? How is this not considered a conspiracy theory? 5 comments down an article that discusses fact checking... Hm, maybe my sarcasm-meter is off by a notch again. dunno.

cblconfederate 5y ago

The idea behind "fact checking" is that facebook wants to push the burden for the crap they broadcast to someone else, and it works, lawmakers go along with it.

emmelaich 5y ago

This what gets me. Zuck is a well educated fella. He must know this is wrong. Why is this happening? Has he lost control of Facebook? Is he not interested?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 5y ago
> He must know this is wrong. It's entirely possible to be well educated and amoral, either via genuine inability to comprehend or simply not caring.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  We know for a fact that FB leadership regularly discussed ripping off smaller companies business ideas (ie, Snapchat [0]. Not a sign of moral people. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/17/theftovation-facebook-likes-copying-ideas/id=86916/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/17/theftovation-facebook-...
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Ripping off business ideas is an aspect of competition (BK versus McDonalds), not sure it is related to morals…
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      Sorry, what? If I share an mp3 the record industry demands ridiculous compensation. If I steal a paragraph in a college exam and get caught, I'm sent home without credit or refund. If I sell a drawing of a certain cartoon mouse, or draw a red shirt on Pooh, I can literally go to jail. ... But if I invest my life savings to start a company based on an insightful idea and read of the market, a trillion dollar company can rip me off wholesale and people will call it "business" and "not related to morals"? Please tell me that sounds as batshit insane to you as it does to me.

b112 5y ago

What really bugs me here is, everyone yells at facebook, saying it is spreading propaganda, lies, societal harm, etc. Then, fact checking is attempted, and people claim censorship, an imperfect job, and the idea that "How dare they!" I literally loath, hate, and despise facebook. But come on, they're only doing this because everyone piled on them, claiming they must fact check and validate things. If I was facebook, twitter, or google seeking this, I'd rightly think that listening to people is dumb, and they should just ignore them.

etherael 5y ago
They should indeed just ignore them, free speech wasn't arrived at as an optimal path by accident. Nothing changed to make it not-optimal. People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. The information streams of the world should not be tailored to the critical thinking ability of complete morons. It blows my mind we went from "trying to censor cop killer is a bridge too far no matter the merits of doing so" to "you can't say things that compromise the interests of powerful individuals, offend the chronically sheltered, or that might confuse the braindead under any circumstances" just in my lifetime. Free speech seemed absolutely unassailable in my youth and has been completely destroyed relative to that in present day. What the fuck happened?
- metabagel 5y ago
  Trump happened
  - etherael 5y ago
    The censorship was well underway before Trump, at best it accelerated it.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  > People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. Sure, free speech is optimal if this happens. But what if it doesn't happen? People are extremely irrational [0], and that certainly won't change anytime soon. What changed is that we got better at exploiting that irrationality at scale. There's no practical value in stating "in an ideal world, free speech is the solution". We don't live in that world, and we don't get any closer to it by complaining on HN about people not doing enough critical thinking. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Spooky23 5y ago

It’s not fact checking… it’s a spam filter style that slaps a warning label on things that could allows Facebook to say they did something. No different than warning labels on cigarettes or really boring commercials from the NFL urging you to not gamble too much.

aa-jv 5y ago

Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation". Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them.

ewidar 5y ago
It might be true for the fact checking groups described here, but to state that as a general case is incorrect. > Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation". Fact checking at its core is about analysing assertions that can be objectively verified. Fact checking must bring forth strong references/sources or proofs to either go in or against the initial assertions. > Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them. If a fact checker does not provide this kind of info, then yes, it does not seem very trustworthy. Although you could still evaluate them based on the sources they are using for their fact checking. But, obviously, it does not have to be the case. Fact checkers can and will provide info about their funding, affiliations, composition, etc... As an example, you can take a look at the FAQ of this fact checker that was active during the French presidential election of 2017 https://crosscheck.firstdraftnews.org/france-en/faq/ https://crosscheck.firstdraftnews.org/france-en/faq/ : As you can see, they clearly state that they received funds from Google News to set things up. They also share details about their partners, members, etc.
- dundarious 5y ago
  > Fact checking at its core is about analysing assertions that can be objectively verified. "Missing context" does not meet this standard of objective verification. Many fact-checking desks and organizations dish out Pinocchios in cases where the "proper context" is political/ideological.
  - 8note 5y ago
    If the proper ideological context is "we want to go to war with Iraq" The statement "Iraq has WMDs" switches from false to true Similarly, "we want to go to war with China" vs "we don't want to go to war with China" switches "the virus is a lab leak" to "the virus is not a lab leak"

secondaryacct 5y ago

It's like if you were bemoaning children were taught by teachers rather than figure it out on their own. A bad teacher is better than no teacher, a bad censor is better than your grandma telling my kid virii dont exist :p

causalmodels 5y ago
Is a bad teacher better than no teacher? My parents had to pull my brother out of third grade because his teacher routinely picked on and harassed him, even going so far as to give him an in school suspension for talking back because they refused to believe "sphere" was a word even after being shown numerous dictionary entries.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

intended 5y ago

From What I know - Meta added fact checkers because historically they were being used to host conspiracy and worse.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I remember when Jeffry Epstein's sex trafficking was just a conspiracy. Good times.

cplusplusfellow 5y ago

I have some small trouble believing that the fact checking is in fact, checking facts. They are checking narrative.

formerly_proven 5y ago
Narrative Enforcement

raxxorrax 5y ago

> but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ Because they are his fact checkers. It isn't an argument against Zuckerberg or a condemnation, this is just the obvious explanation. Whoever came up with the concept of fact checkers plainly wanted to establish some form of authoritative voice or judge. I believe the concept is futile and the motives often dishonest. It will not work for whatever reason though.