Meta is ending its fact-checking program in favor of a 'community notes' system similar to X

[-]

SheriffBartholomew@reddit

This is just like that time Mark Zuckerberg beat a puppy to death with a hammer.

[-]

Old_Smrgol@reddit

The thing I don't get, on this general subject, is why platforms are somehow not responsible for what their algorithms do, when they build the algorithm.

Like if I run a newspaper, and I publish an article that says "Hey don't vote on Tuesday this year, they changed it, it's actually Wednesday," I'm going to be in trouble. That's almost certainly not protected speech, I can be sued, I might face criminal charges.

Same thing if someone writes that in a letter to the editor and I decide to publish it. I'm not supposed to automatically publish every single letter that everyone writes. There's some stuff that I have a responsibility to keep out of my newspaper.

But if I run a social media platform, it seems like legally and culturally that concept of responsibility isn't there. Someone writes a post, "Don't vote Tuesday, vote Wednesday," whatever, the algorithm shows it to however many people, and it's not my problem. It's like the algorithm amplifies what the algorithm amplifies, I can't do anything about it, what are you going to do.

Except, of course, MY COMPANY WRITES THE ALGORITHM.

So that has always seemed weird to me. Like an algorithm is blatantly an indirect way for a company to make editorial decisions, but we just pretend that it isn't.

[-]

EwwItsABovineEntity@reddit

Because newspapers emerged and were regulated in an entirely different historical era than social media. In the neo-liberal 1990s and 2000s, people had highfaluting ideas that the internet would regulate itself and that state regulation would only thwart that. Very different ideas from the 1800s and early 1900s when newspapers were regulated, and politicians were not afraid of regulating stuff. That’s the difference, it’s not more complicated than that.

[-]

involutes@reddit

In the neo-liberal 1990s and 2000s

I think you might be using that term "neoliberal" incorrectly, because otherwise you might say we are still in neoliberal times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[-]

EwwItsABovineEntity@reddit

I’m talking about the 90s and 00s, and calling them neoliberal. Whether that description applies to later decades is not something I say anything about.

[-]

involutes@reddit

The way you phrased in strongly implies neoliberalism is a thing from the 90s and 00s, which it very much isn't. It's very much still a thing today.

[-]

dudepics@reddit

It is, but in the 90s and 00s both mainstream political parties were solidly and explicitly neoliberal. That isn't the case as much anymore as they seem to be headed for a fascist/socialist split like was more common in the early 20th century

[-]

EwwItsABovineEntity@reddit

I agree, although it is more mixed today. Back then, neo-liberalism was unquestionable in public life. Now, you have something like nationalism and new socialism vying for power, although they sometimes blend and mix as well.

[-]

Nocoffeesnob@reddit

Much of it is because our laws are largely created by older people who don't actually understand technology. Then when those laws are challenged in court it ends up being decided on by people who also don't understand the technology. Decades ago the Supreme Court couldn't grasp that email = mail, it was just too darn complicated for them and they decided email shouldn't be treated with the same privacy protections as mail is.

Combine that with bad faith actors who are purposely attempting to avoid any/all regulation because their billionaire overlords told them to. Sprinkle in a horde of people that just follow whatever the other assholes tell them to do. You end up where we are now in our political system.

[-]

andarmanik@reddit

I would say we are at a point in history where we need to define “algorithm” in such a way that is includes the correct amount of agency.

The main argument why the algorithm has no responsibility is because the agency which showed it to everyone is on the poster and not on the algorithm, such that algorithms ad hoc have no agency. But we can’t assume the algorithm has no agency.

When the algorithm is able to discern between an engaging post against a non engaging post it gives users the agency to create engaging content and have it spread.

Whether or not this agency is ascribed to the poster as if the algorithm is a tool or ascribed to the algorithm as if it’s is own entity is still controversial.

I suspect the current language around the algorithm in legality assume it has no agency, where as in common language the algorithm is as agentic as say a new stand.

[-]

Old_Smrgol@reddit

My argument is that the algorithm a tool by which the platform (IE, the company that owns the platform) exercises agency and indirectly makes editorial decisions.

[-]

andarmanik@reddit

I guess that raise an another option I didn’t think about.

I think there could be a distinction between the algorithm and the company that is similar to that of poster and algorithm.

It might be the case that the algorithm, because of lack of control, has agency its self, beyond the company.

These are also more types of agency which we could better define.

[-]

Old_Smrgol@reddit

The company has the ability to revise and edit the algorithm, no? If they don't like what it's doing, they change it to make it do different things.

[-]

andarmanik@reddit

That’s a good point since the company is ultimately the entity which enables the algorithms existence. It does serve a good purpose to see the algorithm as non agentic in this way as to allow companies to be regulated based on the companies behavior.

This is one aspect of the agency for the algorithm but there seems to be still some characteristics about the algorithm which exist outside of the companies control. So for example the pact that the algorithm favors politics is mainly due to the engaging aspect, but just because all it’s doing is improving engagement doesn’t mean it might still have agency within politics.

That speaking, perhaps ascribing more agency to the algorithms would allow better regulation of companies operating algorithms.

[-]

Sn0trag@reddit

He had to testify in front of the Supreme Court

[-]

DefendSection230@reddit

The thing I don't get, on this general subject, is why platforms are somehow not responsible for what their algorithms do, when they build the algorithm.

Because websites didn't create the content. Newspapers create the content that they publish.

The closest equivalent would be best sellers lists and shelves at book stores. Just because you say this book is popular, or you might like this book based on other books you have read, in no way makes the create of the list legally liable for the content of the books on the list.

[-]

FOKvothe@reddit

Newspapers would get sanctioned if they printed an OP ed that was illegal.

Facebook is so full of scams that they it's as if they're a willing participant in scamming the weakest ones in our society. They should be held accountable for it.

[-]

DefendSection230@reddit

Newspapers would get sanctioned if they printed an OP ed that was illegal.

Right that's the newspaper's speech, we covered that.

Here the courts said the New York Times should liable for "letters to the editor" they print. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/nyregion/court-rules-letters-to-the-editor-deserve-protection-from-libel-suits.html

[-]

jesusrambo@reddit

Reading comprehension L

[-]

Old_Smrgol@reddit

Same thing if someone writes that in a letter to the editor and I decide to publish it. I'm not supposed to automatically publish every single letter that everyone writes. There's some stuff that I have a responsibility to keep out of my newspaper.

[-]

DefendSection230@reddit

Not necessarily. Here is a case where they judge decided that the New York Time should be liable for what's in a letter to the editor....

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/nyregion/court-rules-letters-to-the-editor-deserve-protection-from-libel-suits.html

[-]

CalLaw2023@reddit

Like if I run a newspaper, and I publish an article that says "Hey don't vote on Tuesday this year, they changed it, it's actually Wednesday," I'm going to be in trouble. That's almost certainly not protected speech, I can be sued, I might face criminal charges.

That should be protected speech and the fact that at least one Court ruled otherwise is controversial.

I think your point is why are newspapers liable when they publish defamation while websites are not. That too is a controversial subject, but the logic is that newspaper publishers vet everything they publish, while websites generally cannot.

If the ALGORITHM created the defamatory content, the website can be liable. But if someone posts on a website and the ALGORITHM does not prevent it, teh website is not liable. Many people think the law should be changed so that any website that acts like a publisher, whether through ALGORITHMs or otherwise, should be liable. But many others oppose that.

[-]

jojoavav@reddit

Platforms are responsible to a certain extent for what their algorithms do. But this does not mean they are responsible for the content of every post published. That would create more problems than it solves.

- While newspapers exist as a source, social media platforms exist as a medium.

- While newspapers (often) purport to represent a certain set of values, social media platforms claim to be unbiased "town squares".

- While newspapers may release thousands of articles a year, social media platforms publish millions of posts a day.

Given these facts, a few things start to become obvious. First, the "responsibility" of social media platforms has more to do with accurately representing its posters than accurately representing its readers. Second, having a small set of fact checkers for such a large body of content inherently causes suspicion of bias.

[-]

busymom0@reddit

Because currently, the courts have interpreted section 230 that way. However, it doesn't mean that a future SCOTUS may not change that interpretation based on new evidence, including evidence of these companies colluding with government actors.

[-]

Secret_Audience_2192@reddit

Mark Zuckerberg abandoning his integrity in a disappointing turn for a power-abusive system similar to Elon Musk, thriving for exploitation and manipulation.

[-]

ikebuck16@reddit

He never had integrity to begin with.

[-]

Secret_Audience_2192@reddit

True…

[-]

Dawnfreak@reddit

Echo chamber notes. Perfect.

[-]

Pale-Dragonfruit-757@reddit

I'm ending Meta Intrusive non-facts in my media stream. Haa!

[-]

ikebuck16@reddit

It's time to delete

[-]

Verbull710@reddit

But this means leftists will have to put up with seeing things they don't like

[-]

FOKvothe@reddit

Or that it means that there will be even more scams on a site that's rampant with it.

AI posts of politicians endorsing scams never gets removed even when it's clearly fake and illegal. Facebook should be sanctioned for not doing anything about it.

[-]

Rascal0302258@reddit

Reality is gonna be hitting a lot of them very hard soon.

[-]

zuniac5@reddit

Pointing out the obvious: Community notes don't work if you let Russian and Chinese bots run rampant on your platform - not to mention your own platform introducing AI "influencers" that will be indistinguishable from actual people posting of their own accord.

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

The political hacks they called "fact checkers" were a FAR worse problem. Their lies and propaganda were far worse than any fabled "Ze Russians!" nonsense.

Same with reddit, and google, swarming with FBI & Shareblue propagandists. Facebook will still have that problem, they're just not officially, actively encouraging the outright lies anymore, and actually paying for them.

[-]

Aimonetti2@reddit

Absolutely unhinged rant, especially considering Russians were literally paying right wing podcasters millions of dollars per year to spread propaganda ala. Tenet Media

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

Your whole Russian conspiracy theory went down in flames along with Mueller's illegal spying campaign.

There were some, not paid for by the government, and they had no influence on the elections.

Shareblue (formerly Correct the Record) and the FBI basically own and operate all the major subs here, are massively active on facebook, google, as well. And use to be swarming all over Twitter before Musk bought it.

You're spreading more of their ridiculous propaganda.

[-]

FrozenOx@reddit

so how do you feel about Trump taking money from Russian banks to build golf courses? he's not even eligible for basic secret security clearance

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

Trump does business all over the world. There's nothing unusual about this in the least. If doing business in other countries was cause to have security clearances suspended, hardly any politician would be eligible.

And the "Fact Checkers" on Facebook were all lying propaganda agencies paid to push a (false) narrative. Much like you're trying to do.

[-]

FrozenOx@reddit

It is not "doing business in other countries", but owing debts to foreign governments that are considered security threats. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

Nobody is talking about Putin or Russia. Now you're trying to conflate every business based in Russia, with the Russian government.

You're the one with no clue, or more likely, are just spreading more FBI / Shareblue, anti-America propaganda.

Again, if you'd oust any politician doing business in foreign lands, we'd have no government left. Ridiculous nonsense.

There has been zero credible accusations against Trump and any collusion with the Russian government. Just tons of bullshit.

[-]

Vivid_Accountant9542@reddit

In an oligarchy, every business IS part of the government.

[-]

BitingChaos@reddit

Wow.

Looks like we found yet another new account created just to spread Russian propaganda.

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

No, you lot just throw out this silly nonsense whenever someone calls you out for being the real problem.

YAWN. "Ze Russians!" is so old and lame. As is trying to deny the real problem with FBI & Media matters, right here at home.

You lot REALLY need new scripts. Just making yourselves (even more) silly with that crap.

[-]

Play_Tennis@reddit

Isn’t a common message from your political side “if you don’t like it, you can leave”? If you’re so upset update what’s going on at home, just leave. You all disrespect the American flag by putting your political propaganda on the same flag pole.

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

your political side

WTF you on about there dude? You have zero clue.

What "side" are YOU on, exactly?

I'm on the side of the people, We, including you. Though you don't seem to be.

You all disrespect the American flag

Who the fuck are you guys trying to talk to? Not me. I don't care much about flags, but my goodness, seems you lot were told to.

People, notice how such condescending, judgemental hypocrites like this Tennis account act. Instead of offering legitimate arguments, when pressed with facts and logic, they try to bring the conversation down to shit slinging.

Typical propagandist MO.

Shareblue / FBI bullshit is dripping all over social media. reddit included. Obviously and even all over this thread, on a sub about reddit ALTERNATIVES. Hmmmm wonder why?

[-]

Play_Tennis@reddit

Go back to 4Chan bro

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

meh, not into femboys, but you do you

[-]

Play_Tennis@reddit

TLDR, have a nice day Ze Russian

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

Nope, nothing even slightly intelligent to say.

Cya fedboy

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

Under sells the actual treason. Presents an actual conspiracy as a whataboutisum. They must be paying you well comrade

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

That social media sites are swarming with Shareblue / FBI propgandists is not a theory. It is an actual, bona fide conspiracy. (you need to learn the difference).

The "treason" you speak of is a drop in the ocean compared to propaganda and lies our own government tells us.

Harris campaign got caught astroturfing the hell out of reddit btw.

And FBooks former "fact checkers" were the ones spreading blatant lies.

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

That drop in the ocean was a pretty freaking huge drop. Literal interference, bought and paid for on record, people knowingly taking money to actively harm this country. Regardless of whatever other networks are doing, the fact this didn’t end with someone in jail is baffling and goes to show that there is no accountability regardless of who’s in power

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

That drop in the ocean was a pretty freaking huge drop.

No, in reality it was inconsequential. Stop with the lies & Hysteria.

There was no crime, just a bunch of hyped up propaganda from you guys. You never had any evidence to bring a court case.

Just like all the garbage lawfare that was thrown at Trump, in an attempt to keep him from being elected again.

And now, all of them are being dismissed or dropped, because there was never any evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part.

The ones who belong in jail are the various DNC politicians and activist judges, that need to be impeached or disbarred for their seditious, anti-American crimes.

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

Ah the party of small government and law and order. Throwing in behind a literal convicted rapist. Spouting that it’s the democrats ruining this country! When it’s always conservatives who are removing environmental protections allowing companies contaminate our drinking water, or protecting child marriage laws, or propping up a health care industry that’s slowly killing us.

But hey the republicans have the house the senate the executive and the Supreme Court. I’m sure your crusade will end and in 4 years time you’ll be looking back on a grateful nation. Just remember that, the republicans have all the power and whatever comes next they are the ones who did it.

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

What party? The GOP? bahahah yah some RINOS there, could point out a few.

Convicted rapist? No, Joe Biden wasn't convicted. Though his daughter's confirmed diary was very damning. Also the shitshow his freakshow, criminal son Hunter is.

10% for the big guy.

You're obviously trying to paint President Trump as a convicted something... Show us the conviction. You cannot. Just a load a bullshit.

Yup, the Repubs have all 3 now. Thanks to dipshit bullshit like you're spewing here... you lot have learned NOTHING, and people are sick of your shit.

You are wasting your boss's money. Go get new scripts, because your old ones have failed, miserably.

By now.

[-]

nameless_pattern@reddit

1

Post karma

-3

Comment karma

Jan 6, 2025

Cake day

Don't feed the bots. Just block and move on

[-]

robotzor@reddit

I spy with my little eye a veteran from the Bernie wars

[-]

Simon-Says69@reddit

Just someone who's been paying attention.

[-]

veggie151@reddit

Meh, but they are free and let them shunt the blame back to the community

[-]

typtyphus@reddit

that is the plan?

[-]

Chief_Kief@reddit

Oof

[-]

joedude@reddit

Leftists don't like when average people are allowed to assert the truth with evidence lol

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

Remember when VP Trump told people that drinking bleach would cure their covid? Good times

[-]

ColakSteel@reddit

He never said that.

[-]

joedude@reddit

Nope but keep losing.

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

What do you mean?

[-]

NuderWorldOrder@reddit

They mean no such thing happen. And only an idiot who trusts "fact checkers" would think it did.

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

Oh honey. That did happen. It came out of vice president Trump’s mouth and no amount of denial on your part is going to change that.

[-]

joedude@reddit

Just keep doing what you do, so you can keep losing harder and harder

[-]

ocelotsporn@reddit

You appear to be confused here bud I think you should maybe loosen up on the bleach just a tad.

[-]

a2aurelio@reddit

Repeal Section 230 of the ironically named "Communication Decency Act," which shields Zuck and X for liability for what would be libel by a newspaper, and FB would be out of business in a week.

They'd need liability insurance.

[-]

Southern-Topic-9888@reddit

Stupid

[-]

cheesebiscuitsithink@reddit

Bending the knee to Donny already

[-]

Loggerdon@reddit

And sinking to the low common denominator user. The worst of the worst.

[-]

ResolverOshawott@reddit

To be fair, Facebook definitely does still connect and it CAN help, but it's gotten to the point where it does more harm than good now.

[-]

BigJSunshine@reddit

Sucking the mushroom is more like it

[-]

AmputatorBot@reddit

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/meta-ends-fact-checking-program-community-notes-x-rcna186468

^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)

[-]

YummySpreadsheets@reddit

Good bot

[-]

B0tRank@reddit

Thank you, YummySpreadsheets, for voting on AmputatorBot.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

[-]

TirelessGuardian@reddit

Good bot

[-]

keepthepace@reddit

Despite the obvious political motivations, are there reasons to believe that the community notes approach is inferior? I am not using much of either platform but the little I heard from community notes was that they regularly contradict Musk. Facebook fact checking seems to be purely manual which requires to enforce a specific viewpoint on selected issues, which is not ideal...

[-]

busymom0@reddit

I think community notes is superior to their current "fact-checking". Even the critics of Elon and twitter agree that community notes has overall been a good thing as it's far more accurate.

[-]

Smiles4YouRawrX3@reddit

Based.

[-]

P_Bear06@reddit

Don’t go telling r/europe that there’s something good about Elon Musk’s network, their modos won’t get over it. 😂

For them, Musk is pure evil. (But they publish 2 news items a day about him ☝️)

[-]

one_ugly_dude@reddit

Oh no!! One big corporation isn't letting the other big corporations dictate "facts!" They democratized and decentralized fact checking! The horror! We might get context on "truth," rather than just letting Facebook/their friends tell us.

[-]

TheRealMisterd@reddit

It's Zuck the guy who got a penis transplant from a rat?

[-]

virtueavatar@reddit

Maybe in response to this

https://theshovel.com.au/2020/05/28/mark-zuckerberg-dead-at-36-says-social-media-fact-check/

[-]

teatiller@reddit

Guess the fact check checking software was getting rid of too many posts (er, memes) with “aLtErNaTiVe fAcTS”.

[-]

oralpanacea@reddit

Mark Zuckerberg rapes children. FaCT!

[-]

Snakedoctor404@reddit

Yes, I deleted my FB account when I got a strike for this meme 4-5 years ago for false information. The censorship was out of hand and got tired of having to go to each friends page that post funny stuff because humor was hidden and all that showed up on the main page was constant doom and gloom bs.

That was after FB publicly admitted they were deliberately altering people's moods by showing mostly positive or negative content in the person's feed. So I knew I was targeted for negative feed and completely deleted my account the best I could because we know they don't really deleted your information.

[-]

Valuable-Speaker-312@reddit

In other words, "alternative facts" are going to be allowed on the platform despite all the evidence to the contrary being the truth.

[-]

Octopusapult@reddit

Oh nice, I'm going to post so much straight up disinformation about that fat orange fuck and his illegal immigrant husband in every single group I can. I'll spam real stuff too, just to keep them on their toes. There's enough of that around anyway, should have plenty of "ammo" for it.

[-]

TheAspiringFarmer@reddit

Zuck kisses the ring but we need accountability and reparations for the damage he has wrought from his “fact checking”.