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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
And a tweet with a CN attached cannot be monetized.
Tweets can be monetised? I only know Twitter from screenshots.
It’s like YouTube, you can chose to show ads.
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.
And for free, no less!
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
“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.
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.
“fairly good” or not, the question is, is it better than a 3rd party service like the one Meta was using.
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
Facebook are going to do what Facebook are going to do, therefore we can’t criticize what they do?
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.
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.
What does Facebook have now, a monarchy? Their moderators are way worse than Twitter fact-checking ever was.