4 ms·

Claims are challenged all the time by other users and there are enough cases where fact checkers were wrong or heavily biased. EU legislation tries to introduc

by raxxor 2y ago

Claims are challenged all the time by other users and there are enough cases where fact checkers were wrong or heavily biased. EU legislation tries to introduce "trusted flaggers". A ridiculous approach, an information authority by a state-like entity doesn't work, even if they paint these flaggers as independent. They simply are not, a trusted and verifiable fact. Community notes provide higher quality info, it is the better approach. That is an opinion of course. We will probably see community notes on trusted flaggers.

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
>Claims are challenged all the time by other users and there are enough cases where fact checkers were wrong or heavily biased. I've only seen a handful of cases where they were wrong of heavily biased, but I've seen hundreds of cases where the poster refuses to accept they are wrong and the fact checkers are right. >Community notes provide higher quality info, it is the better approach. That is an opinion of course. Roughly the same info but from less trusted sources and with less controls being higher quality sounds like a big bag of wishes but not grounded in reality. >We will probably see community notes on trusted flaggers. I expect lots of partisan complaining and yelling, but not a lot of actual valid challenges.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxor 2y ago
  I don't know. I believe the average internet user has less to gain to feed me wrong info. It happens of course, that is why you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. A fact checker however has economic incentive towards their employers. You can paint them as independent, but the will always be in a precarious situation or are influenced by third party financiers. This does not at all evoke more trust than a random internet person. Trusted source is pretty subjective, but for me "official" fact checkers don't have too much of that.

by raxxor 2y ago

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago

>Claims are challenged all the time by other users and there are enough cases where fact checkers were wrong or heavily biased. I've only seen a handful of cases where they were wrong of heavily biased, but I've seen hundreds of cases where the poster refuses to accept they are wrong and the fact checkers are right. >Community notes provide higher quality info, it is the better approach. That is an opinion of course. Roughly the same info but from less trusted sources and with less controls being higher quality sounds like a big bag of wishes but not grounded in reality. >We will probably see community notes on trusted flaggers. I expect lots of partisan complaining and yelling, but not a lot of actual valid challenges.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
raxxor 2y ago
I don't know. I believe the average internet user has less to gain to feed me wrong info. It happens of course, that is why you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. A fact checker however has economic incentive towards their employers. You can paint them as independent, but the will always be in a precarious situation or are influenced by third party financiers. This does not at all evoke more trust than a random internet person. Trusted source is pretty subjective, but for me "official" fact checkers don't have too much of that.