Meta replaces fact-checking with X-style community notes
apnews.com
apnews.com
> Zuckerberg said Meta was focused on "restoring free expression"
> The 40-year-old tycoon said that "recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point toward, once again, prioritizing speech."
> He added that Meta platforms would "simplify" their content policies "and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse."
> Meta will also relocate its trust and safety and content moderation teams from California, to Texas. Zuckerberg suggested the southern state is a place where "there is less concern about the bias of our teams."
It was to be expected, that business would be the first to drop identity politics, after being the last to hop on the bandwagon. They have the most to lose. Now let's see if the institutions that are paid by taxes will follow, or if they have to be forced to through budget cuts and legislation.
The moderation is definitely a system that could be improved drastically.
Best case scenario: this genuinely does lift the restrictions on discussing certain topics that are hot button issues: Israel/Palestine, immigration, gender politics, foreign relations, etc. I'm also very hopeful this serves as a cudgel against governments around the world who wish to silence journalists and physically attack speakers they don't like (e.g. Saudi Arabia, India, etc.)
Worst case scenario: This becomes a Musk-like social media platform, where things he likes are okay to talk about and things he doesn't like get you banned (e.g. recent H1B debate, in which I agreed with him but not his censorship, the guy posting his plane schedule, etc.). Still banning many reasonable posts about Israel/Palestine or guns or topics that it's just safer to ban and the leaders don't care about them. Still banning many reasonable posts that the leaders do care about and want to influence in one or another way. Still cooperating with censorship with govts that are powerful, or strategic enough (e.g. Saudi Arabia, India, etc.).
So let's see what happens. I'm optimistic, and some things I heard were strange (moving moderation teams to Texas to reduce bias??). But time will tell what comes of this
It's a topic that is both important and controversial.
People are getting into upvote/downvote wars over comments on the posts. The HN algorithm automatically downranks the posts as likely to drive bad behavior among users. Then someone submits another article about it and the process repeats.
This is obviously more about politics than it is about building misinformation-free social networks. The fact that they're blatantly giving up should concern everyone.
This Meta article has more information: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=6...
Why is this "obvious"?
It is obvious to me that "fact checking" by media was and is nothing of the sort.
Worse yet is the idea of consensus wisdom. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. Even if we assumed everyone in the collective was the pinnacle of human ability, voting on what we all subjectively perceive as an objective truth is no better than like/dislike.
I'm sure philosophers have made better commentary on these issues. I'm reminded of packaged foods. If you have to tell me that there is "real cheese flavor", I probably shouldn't be consuming it.
Social media is mostly not a good place for political discussion. It is mostly anonymous/pseudonymous people (or at least mostly strangers) arguing past each other, arguing for the crowd, or just venting into the void. It might be a good place for doing rhetoric/propaganda. As if we needed more of that.
Social media feels vaguely like talking to your friends, aka, having political discussions. I think conflating political discussions and spewing rhetoric has made us much dumber as a society.