• fox2263
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 months ago

      Crowd sourced fact checking so they don’t have to pay staff to do it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        Instead the “community” can brigade the “verification” and create an even louder echo chamber.

        • fox2263
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Indeed. People are going to have to work hard to constantly be tackling misinformation like on X.

          However it does present an opportunity. Perhaps a taste of their own medicine…

          Post misinformation about the CEOs and the like, like I’ve seen a few articles recently about Zucc having sexual issues. Community notes could say it’s true if there’s enough votes or submissions or whatever 🤣

          Or like https://lemmy.world/post/24021828

          If it’s about the CEOs we can digitally “luigi” them

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
      link
      fedilink
      English
      214 months ago

      It’s broad consensus that’s featured there, so it manufactures consent less hard, and more importantly, the fact-check appears attaches to the original misinfo, so it gets reshared with it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        but broad consensus does not mean true.

        to me this just sounds like social media passing the buck to their users with no regard for accuracy. sure, whatever you guys want to believe, go for it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

          like social media passing the buck to their users with no regard for accuracy.

          Lol this is the whole idea of the social networks - outsourcing of the work to the users (or “useds” as Stallman calls them). This used to be called “web 2.0”. In other news, this also highlights one of the shortcomings behind the idea of democracy.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            What does Facebook have now, a monarchy? Their moderators are way worse than Twitter fact-checking ever was.

        • nfh
          link
          fedilink
          English
          254 months ago

          I think you and the person you’re responding to both have a point. They’re totally passing the buck to their users, but their users will probably be better at putting accurate information than they are. It’s a different set of problems to be sure, but I think it’s a preferable one

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            but their users will probably be better at putting accurate information than they are.

            “they” (Meta) was not the one fact-checking, it was a 3rd party service. And I don’t know why you assume a social media user base would be better at it, especially with highly politicized things like climate change, vaccines, wars, etc.

            • Echo Dot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              15
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              They think that because community notes are actually fairly good on Twitter. You’d think that they wouldn’t be, but somehow the extremist idiots don’t seem to be able to outshout the sensible majority.

              Just go on YouTube and search for community notes.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                44 months ago

                “fairly good” or not, the question is, is it better than a 3rd party service like the one Meta was using.

                • Echo Dot
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  It doesn’t matter. Facebook are going to do what Facebook are going to do.

                  But we know for definite that community notes actually do work at dissuading disinformation. So whatever some third-party may or may not do isn’t really relevant. Especially considering we already know they don’t do shit because Facebook is already utter cluster fuck with absolutely no recourse for the truth.

                  I would also point out that community notices are already better than nothing which is of course the alternative here. Facebook all removing any kind of verification in exchange for user verification which is a lot better than removing verification exchange for nothing. So whether or not use a verification is better is irrelevant. Since no other option is being presented

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    34 months ago

                    Facebook are going to do what Facebook are going to do, therefore we can’t criticize what they do?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  7
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  I’d assume community notes will populate faster and the way misinformation spreads this advantage makes it 10x more useful.

                  You want to lock it down have some thrid party review the notes, should reduce their workload at the very least.

        • Pandantic [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 months ago

          to me this just sounds like social media passing the buck to their users with no regard for accuracy.

          And for free, no less!