4 ms·

This is a very myopic take on things. > dictate truth What about the damage done by the millions of lies that people post on the platform to spread their bigo

This is a very myopic take on things. > dictate truth What about the damage done by the millions of lies that people post on the platform to spread their bigoted agendas? What about how these platforms' algorithms ostensibly promote hatred and shocking material? Just look at the Rohingya massacre [0] and tell me you're OK with it. [0] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

naturalpb 2y ago
Opting for community notes rather than provably biased fact-checkers is akin to massacre, got it.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  That’s a shallow take. Opting for community notes without any fact checking will transform truth from facts to “loudest voice”. So, who can yell louder will be accepted as the flag of truth, which is very dangerous. Of course, if you like your propaganda well-done, Facebook will be a great place for that.
  - naturalpb 2y ago
    You're right, it's a shallow take in response to a straw man of my position. Clearly content moderation is a HARD problem and the decision-makers at Facebook know this better than almost anyone. They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest, of which I happen to support.
    - louthy 2y ago
      > They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest They're making a decision based on political pressure.
      - nailer 2y ago
        How do you know? Occam's razor suggest that the fact checkers did indeed veer too far left of the American public.
        bayindirh 2y ago
        From here, Occam’s razor suggest that big companies want to be cozy with the new president, so they can continue getting what they want. Money doesn’t care about wings.
        nailer 2y ago
        That new president was elected by most Americans, and had 'get men out of womens sports' as an official part of their platform.
        bayindirh 2y ago
        Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means. I won’t start a list here, but their effects on our world is pretty profound. So, being elected is by no means an indicator of any sort.
        nailer 2y ago
        Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad, that is a straw man you have created to argue with. Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. This is easily variable by looking at the platform of the winning party and the policies of the so-called fact checkers.
        bayindirh 2y ago
        > Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad That's true, incl. me. > that is a straw man you have created to argue with. Did I said or implied Trump is bad? No. What I said is, being elected is not an indicator of goodness of badness of a leader, and said that there's a large list, without giving any names, because goodness and badness is subjective. > Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. Yes. That part is true, too. People wanted that particular flavor this time, and will decide whether they liked the experience or not. > The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. "So-called" from your perspective, so from that point on your opinions are biased, and there's no point on arguing any further. Of course you're free to vote for whoever you want, and AFAICS, the person you support has won. Congrats. My only hope is what you get in the end won't be more than what you bargained for. BTW, on that "getting men out of women's sports" thing, watch this video [0]. In the end, performance is enhanced so much, the gap between genders are closed nevertheless. On the other hand, gender in Olympic games are determined with genetic testing anyway, so your looks doesn't have any effect on whom you compete with. Maybe we should prevent this in the future, so humans can compete with their true potential, not with "monstrous performances" enabled by designer drugs and doping. So there's a whole forest running when people are looking to the wrong tree. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2op5XG7LGkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2op5XG7LGkI
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    I've found X's community notes for the most part to be informative and "neutral", they're usually used to add context to posts when people cut the important parts out.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      The feature was not bad when it was first introduced, but I don't know how it fares against brigading and more targeted psyops by bigger actors. Also are we absolutely sure that community notes have immunity from moderators and they're not manipulated in any way? Community notes are indeed a good feature at first blush, but considering the current climate of "freedom of speech / post-truth / let's move fast and break society norms", it's more dangerous than a group of allegedly biased fact checkers. It's a way of deregulating the social media platforms to level of utilities which carry whatever passes through them without prejudice, and shifting blame to the people for believing what they read. The thing they're designing is very ripe for manipulating people en masse.
- petargyurov 2y ago
  Not sure what anyone here gains from a reductive comment like this. In case it wasn't clear, obviously that's not what I'm saying -- I was curious why you'd be OK with a reduction in fact checking when the platform is a means to such despicable acts.

naturalpb 2y ago

Opting for community notes rather than provably biased fact-checkers is akin to massacre, got it.

bayindirh 2y ago
That’s a shallow take. Opting for community notes without any fact checking will transform truth from facts to “loudest voice”. So, who can yell louder will be accepted as the flag of truth, which is very dangerous. Of course, if you like your propaganda well-done, Facebook will be a great place for that.
- naturalpb 2y ago
  You're right, it's a shallow take in response to a straw man of my position. Clearly content moderation is a HARD problem and the decision-makers at Facebook know this better than almost anyone. They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest, of which I happen to support.
  - louthy 2y ago
    > They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest They're making a decision based on political pressure.
    - nailer 2y ago
      How do you know? Occam's razor suggest that the fact checkers did indeed veer too far left of the American public.
      - bayindirh 2y ago
        From here, Occam’s razor suggest that big companies want to be cozy with the new president, so they can continue getting what they want. Money doesn’t care about wings.
        nailer 2y ago
        That new president was elected by most Americans, and had 'get men out of womens sports' as an official part of their platform.
        bayindirh 2y ago
        Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means. I won’t start a list here, but their effects on our world is pretty profound. So, being elected is by no means an indicator of any sort.
        nailer 2y ago
        Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad, that is a straw man you have created to argue with. Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. This is easily variable by looking at the platform of the winning party and the policies of the so-called fact checkers.
        bayindirh 2y ago
        > Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad That's true, incl. me. > that is a straw man you have created to argue with. Did I said or implied Trump is bad? No. What I said is, being elected is not an indicator of goodness of badness of a leader, and said that there's a large list, without giving any names, because goodness and badness is subjective. > Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. Yes. That part is true, too. People wanted that particular flavor this time, and will decide whether they liked the experience or not. > The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. "So-called" from your perspective, so from that point on your opinions are biased, and there's no point on arguing any further. Of course you're free to vote for whoever you want, and AFAICS, the person you support has won. Congrats. My only hope is what you get in the end won't be more than what you bargained for. BTW, on that "getting men out of women's sports" thing, watch this video [0]. In the end, performance is enhanced so much, the gap between genders are closed nevertheless. On the other hand, gender in Olympic games are determined with genetic testing anyway, so your looks doesn't have any effect on whom you compete with. Maybe we should prevent this in the future, so humans can compete with their true potential, not with "monstrous performances" enabled by designer drugs and doping. So there's a whole forest running when people are looking to the wrong tree. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2op5XG7LGkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2op5XG7LGkI
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  I've found X's community notes for the most part to be informative and "neutral", they're usually used to add context to posts when people cut the important parts out.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    The feature was not bad when it was first introduced, but I don't know how it fares against brigading and more targeted psyops by bigger actors. Also are we absolutely sure that community notes have immunity from moderators and they're not manipulated in any way? Community notes are indeed a good feature at first blush, but considering the current climate of "freedom of speech / post-truth / let's move fast and break society norms", it's more dangerous than a group of allegedly biased fact checkers. It's a way of deregulating the social media platforms to level of utilities which carry whatever passes through them without prejudice, and shifting blame to the people for believing what they read. The thing they're designing is very ripe for manipulating people en masse.
petargyurov 2y ago
Not sure what anyone here gains from a reductive comment like this. In case it wasn't clear, obviously that's not what I'm saying -- I was curious why you'd be OK with a reduction in fact checking when the platform is a means to such despicable acts.