Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company's moderation policies and practices, saying the election felt like a "cultural tipping point."
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.
There is, but doesn’t explain why there’s more upvotes on the post than the comment. Most people would downvote the post after reading that comment, but it’s usually higher anyway. (and sometimes it’s not, I know)
Except in instances when the Notes were screenshot and passed around as a joke, I don’t know how many people took them seriously on X, The Everything App.
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)
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.
Honestly not a bad idea. The community notes are easier to trust and typically more accurate anyway.
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?
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
In a capitalist society, you get much better quality when you pay someone their living to do that.
Because that’s never gone wrong before
I trust that more than some random fact checkers tbh.
Just look at front page on reddit. Basically half of the headlines are misleading.
Yes, and reddit has massive centralized ban squads that suppress dissent.
A lot of the time there’s a comment correcting the title or article at the top though. Pros and cons with that system.
There is, but doesn’t explain why there’s more upvotes on the post than the comment. Most people would downvote the post after reading that comment, but it’s usually higher anyway. (and sometimes it’s not, I know)
Because people don’t go to the comments, they read the title on the front/subreddit page, sometimes vote and then move on.
Except in instances when the Notes were screenshot and passed around as a joke, I don’t know how many people took them seriously on X, The Everything App.
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)
just search it up gal
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.
And who certified the international fact checking network!?
International Board of Fact-Checking
And who fact checks the International Board of Fact-Checking?!