4 ms·

Meta replaces fact-checking with X-style community notes

27 points by geox 2y ago

ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627
paxys 2y ago
Why is this topic being posted and removed every 10 minutes?
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I think it is a tricky story for this site because it is a tech company making an obviously politically motivated decision, so it is producing a lot of unproductive discussion.
- yodon 2y ago
  >Why is this topic being posted and removed every 10 minutes? It's a topic that is both important and controversial. People are getting into upvote/downvote wars over comments on the posts. The HN algorithm automatically downranks the posts as likely to drive bad behavior among users. Then someone submits another article about it and the process repeats.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
somedude895 2y ago
It's quite remarkable how quickly the tides are turning. Even 12 months ago I would have never expected to hear things like these from Zuckerberg's mouth: > Zuckerberg said Meta was focused on "restoring free expression" > The 40-year-old tycoon said that "recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point toward, once again, prioritizing speech." > He added that Meta platforms would "simplify" their content policies "and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse." > Meta will also relocate its trust and safety and content moderation teams from California, to Texas. Zuckerberg suggested the southern state is a place where "there is less concern about the bias of our teams." It was to be expected, that business would be the first to drop identity politics, after being the last to hop on the bandwagon. They have the most to lose. Now let's see if the institutions that are paid by taxes will follow, or if they have to be forced to through budget cuts and legislation.
hexator 2y ago
Zuckerberg provided no evidence that the fact checking program actually failed. Fact checkers obviously have their own biases, their program was designed to highlight that and allow for multiple sources. Too much content being fact checked also sounds like a non-problem—perhaps Zuckerberg should reflect why that may be the case instead of outright abandoning fact-checking. Also, it remains to be seen if the community notes program could work outside of the US (likely why they're just doing this in the US now) This is obviously more about politics than it is about building misinformation-free social networks. The fact that they're blatantly giving up should concern everyone. This Meta article has more information: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=673052479947730 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=6...
- TMWNN 2y ago
  > This is obviously more about politics than it is about building misinformation-free social networks. Why is this "obvious"? It is obvious to me that "fact checking" by media was and is nothing of the sort.
palmfacehn 2y ago
The entire premise of fact-check or community notes is infantilizing. If we cannot trust individuals to consume information on their own terms, why would we trust them to vote? Furthermore, if we cannot trust news outlets, why would we trust fact checkers? Worse yet is the idea of consensus wisdom. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. Even if we assumed everyone in the collective was the pinnacle of human ability, voting on what we all subjectively perceive as an objective truth is no better than like/dislike. I'm sure philosophers have made better commentary on these issues. I'm reminded of packaged foods. If you have to tell me that there is "real cheese flavor", I probably shouldn't be consuming it.
- cameldrv 2y ago
  How would people consume information “on their own terms” on Facebook? The feed is not under the user’s control.
  - glimshe 2y ago
    This very statement is infantilizing. Yes, they can, even if many/most don't. I use Facebook solely for groups, and 90% of my feed is apolitical content related to my personal interests. The other 10% are random stuff from friends.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  These algorithmic platforms aren’t deciding what we get to talk about, they are editorializing; deciding which of our posts they would like to rebroadcast to their other users. If he doesn’t want to make sure the things his network rebroadcasts are true… I mean, it’s sort of like, well they’ve always been extremely lazy about fact checking anyway. So I guess it is good that he’s announcing it. Social media is mostly not a good place for political discussion. It is mostly anonymous/pseudonymous people (or at least mostly strangers) arguing past each other, arguing for the crowd, or just venting into the void. It might be a good place for doing rhetoric/propaganda. As if we needed more of that. Social media feels vaguely like talking to your friends, aka, having political discussions. I think conflating political discussions and spewing rhetoric has made us much dumber as a society.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
The number one complaint I get from people is "Why did Facebook / Instagram / Oculus take down my account, ban me, require me to send ID, etc." The moderation is definitely a system that could be improved drastically. Best case scenario: this genuinely does lift the restrictions on discussing certain topics that are hot button issues: Israel/Palestine, immigration, gender politics, foreign relations, etc. I'm also very hopeful this serves as a cudgel against governments around the world who wish to silence journalists and physically attack speakers they don't like (e.g. Saudi Arabia, India, etc.) Worst case scenario: This becomes a Musk-like social media platform, where things he likes are okay to talk about and things he doesn't like get you banned (e.g. recent H1B debate, in which I agreed with him but not his censorship, the guy posting his plane schedule, etc.). Still banning many reasonable posts about Israel/Palestine or guns or topics that it's just safer to ban and the leaders don't care about them. Still banning many reasonable posts that the leaders do care about and want to influence in one or another way. Still cooperating with censorship with govts that are powerful, or strategic enough (e.g. Saudi Arabia, India, etc.). So let's see what happens. I'm optimistic, and some things I heard were strange (moving moderation teams to Texas to reduce bias??). But time will tell what comes of this
ColinWright 2y ago
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42622147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42622147

27 points by geox 2y ago

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627

paxys 2y ago

Why is this topic being posted and removed every 10 minutes?

bee_rider 2y ago
I think it is a tricky story for this site because it is a tech company making an obviously politically motivated decision, so it is producing a lot of unproductive discussion.
yodon 2y ago
>Why is this topic being posted and removed every 10 minutes? It's a topic that is both important and controversial. People are getting into upvote/downvote wars over comments on the posts. The HN algorithm automatically downranks the posts as likely to drive bad behavior among users. Then someone submits another article about it and the process repeats.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

somedude895 2y ago

It's quite remarkable how quickly the tides are turning. Even 12 months ago I would have never expected to hear things like these from Zuckerberg's mouth: > Zuckerberg said Meta was focused on "restoring free expression" > The 40-year-old tycoon said that "recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point toward, once again, prioritizing speech." > He added that Meta platforms would "simplify" their content policies "and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse." > Meta will also relocate its trust and safety and content moderation teams from California, to Texas. Zuckerberg suggested the southern state is a place where "there is less concern about the bias of our teams." It was to be expected, that business would be the first to drop identity politics, after being the last to hop on the bandwagon. They have the most to lose. Now let's see if the institutions that are paid by taxes will follow, or if they have to be forced to through budget cuts and legislation.

hexator 2y ago

Zuckerberg provided no evidence that the fact checking program actually failed. Fact checkers obviously have their own biases, their program was designed to highlight that and allow for multiple sources. Too much content being fact checked also sounds like a non-problem—perhaps Zuckerberg should reflect why that may be the case instead of outright abandoning fact-checking. Also, it remains to be seen if the community notes program could work outside of the US (likely why they're just doing this in the US now) This is obviously more about politics than it is about building misinformation-free social networks. The fact that they're blatantly giving up should concern everyone. This Meta article has more information: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=673052479947730 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=6...

TMWNN 2y ago
> This is obviously more about politics than it is about building misinformation-free social networks. Why is this "obvious"? It is obvious to me that "fact checking" by media was and is nothing of the sort.

palmfacehn 2y ago

The entire premise of fact-check or community notes is infantilizing. If we cannot trust individuals to consume information on their own terms, why would we trust them to vote? Furthermore, if we cannot trust news outlets, why would we trust fact checkers? Worse yet is the idea of consensus wisdom. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. Even if we assumed everyone in the collective was the pinnacle of human ability, voting on what we all subjectively perceive as an objective truth is no better than like/dislike. I'm sure philosophers have made better commentary on these issues. I'm reminded of packaged foods. If you have to tell me that there is "real cheese flavor", I probably shouldn't be consuming it.

cameldrv 2y ago
How would people consume information “on their own terms” on Facebook? The feed is not under the user’s control.
- glimshe 2y ago
  This very statement is infantilizing. Yes, they can, even if many/most don't. I use Facebook solely for groups, and 90% of my feed is apolitical content related to my personal interests. The other 10% are random stuff from friends.
bee_rider 2y ago
These algorithmic platforms aren’t deciding what we get to talk about, they are editorializing; deciding which of our posts they would like to rebroadcast to their other users. If he doesn’t want to make sure the things his network rebroadcasts are true… I mean, it’s sort of like, well they’ve always been extremely lazy about fact checking anyway. So I guess it is good that he’s announcing it. Social media is mostly not a good place for political discussion. It is mostly anonymous/pseudonymous people (or at least mostly strangers) arguing past each other, arguing for the crowd, or just venting into the void. It might be a good place for doing rhetoric/propaganda. As if we needed more of that. Social media feels vaguely like talking to your friends, aka, having political discussions. I think conflating political discussions and spewing rhetoric has made us much dumber as a society.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

The number one complaint I get from people is "Why did Facebook / Instagram / Oculus take down my account, ban me, require me to send ID, etc." The moderation is definitely a system that could be improved drastically. Best case scenario: this genuinely does lift the restrictions on discussing certain topics that are hot button issues: Israel/Palestine, immigration, gender politics, foreign relations, etc. I'm also very hopeful this serves as a cudgel against governments around the world who wish to silence journalists and physically attack speakers they don't like (e.g. Saudi Arabia, India, etc.) Worst case scenario: This becomes a Musk-like social media platform, where things he likes are okay to talk about and things he doesn't like get you banned (e.g. recent H1B debate, in which I agreed with him but not his censorship, the guy posting his plane schedule, etc.). Still banning many reasonable posts about Israel/Palestine or guns or topics that it's just safer to ban and the leaders don't care about them. Still banning many reasonable posts that the leaders do care about and want to influence in one or another way. Still cooperating with censorship with govts that are powerful, or strategic enough (e.g. Saudi Arabia, India, etc.). So let's see what happens. I'm optimistic, and some things I heard were strange (moving moderation teams to Texas to reduce bias??). But time will tell what comes of this

ColinWright 2y ago

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42622147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42622147