Context:
Remove liberal global affairs, replace with Republican: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw785585wo
Donation to Trump inauguration and more context: https://apnews.com/article/meta-facts-trump-musk-community-notes-413b8495939a058ff2d25fd23f2e0f43
Trump appeasement. Looks like he’s still pissed he was banned. Meta looking desperate.
Honestly didn’t know Facebook even had a fact-checker system. They are pretty explicit in their mission to sow discord and disinformation, it’s basically their whole business model
They are pretty explicit in their mission to
sow discord and disinformationmaximize profits and minimize costsWith Trumpism taking over the federal government wholesale, there’s little reason to even pretend to cater to the minority party. Unless there’s a shift during the midterms, of course. Then Zuck will rediscover religion and insist the content on his site needs to be moderated by liberals again.
But its all just patronage. These moderation jobs are either soul-sucking gig work or no-show positions for the local professional political leadership. The work isn’t a profit center so it only exists as a means of assuaging regulators or cultivating cronies. Facebook’s real work is in harvesting data for Nat.Sec and gulling suckers with ads. Nothing else matters.
Threads app today is flooded with tons of obviously false news posts about Zuckerberg and Meta like zuck is dead, zuck is gay, zuck is californian arsonist, zuck sold meta, zuck is trans - all kinds of nonsense shit people posting, with pictures, because okay yeah, the US doesn’t need fact checking so lets blow it up through the roof then.
And its the perfect response to Meta’s bending the knee and bootlicking.
What’s next for that absolute cesspool?
Looking forward to the next pandemic where vaccines aren’t even developed because the Facebook rabble demands politicians provide us all with crystals and horoscopes instead.
We also not getting any real medications prescribed, but weights, raw meat, and some grifter’s vitamin supplements.
Honestly its probably for the best. When people started investigating the “Fact checkers”, it was discovered that they didn’t know anything about the checks that were attributed to them.
Fact checkers don’t have to be expert on the subject, often all it requires is some googling and a quick glimpse at some research paper.
Yeah, because Google is completely nonbiased.
Note the lowercase “googling”. Nobody says “duckduckgoing”, “binging”, “yahooing”, or even “searnging”.
I mean that’s a problem… but it sounds like the problem gets worse.
Realistically fact checking always lies in the problem of how do we know the fact checkers aren’t corrupted. Unfortunately popular vote seems just as dangerous way of trying to back it.
Why should ziozuck pay to fail when he can fail for free?
This truly is a new age of Enlightenment for humanity!
Honestly not a bad idea. The community notes are easier to trust and typically more accurate anyway.
Easier to trust and more accurate currently, but I don’t doubt that the algorithm to generate the notes will be internal and closed source, allowing them to utilize that trust to manipulate people.
Community notes are written and voted on by the community
Because that’s never gone wrong before
and, what happens when say the community overwhelms, say a conservative facebook group, could add a community note saying “the geese are dissapearing near hatian communities, and there are x missing cats and dogs”. While voting against notes actually reporting the Mayor, Police etc… having denied the claims and also noting that the missing animals are normal for any region of said size.
Not when the community notes will be written by AI, and voted on by bots.
Whomever has the most AI and bots to swamp the notes with their text and generate votes wins.
Does that sound like a good way to get facts?
It’s a great way to get facts if you want your facts to be accurate less than half of the time.
Better than partners certified by the International Fact-Checking Network?
I don’t know what the “International Fact-Checking Network” is and I doubt most Facebook users do. The type of person using Facebook is going to likely trust notes written by their peers more than things that come from “on high” (meaning Facebook themselves)
is going to likely trust notes written by their peers
How is that a good thing if a lot of these notes take content out of context or are just plain wrong, echoed by those who trust misinformation?
I suppose I’m just seeing how even Twitter has had success with community notes, and figured it would be the same on Facebook. But it’s easy to forget just how… out there Facebook is these days.
Community Notes are good, but they’re never a complete replacement for paid work. And my second paragraph is based on some notable incidents on X; it’s not just “oh it’s only bad because it’s on Facebook”.
Yeah, and with the added context of other things Meta has done over the past few days, we can plainly see what this is about.
