Hacker News Reader

Comment by dotancohen | Hacker News Reader

  > it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented.

To me it sounds better for large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion, like Qatar. I disagree that this is better for either Facebook users, or society as a whole.

It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.

View on HN

I was under the impression that Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks, but I could be wrong. Community Notes have been used at Twitter for a long time. Are there examples of state-influenced notes getting through the process?

Twitter's Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks. Meta is calling their new product Community Notes, but it would be a mistake to assume the algorithms are the same under the hood. Hopefully Meta will be as transparent as Twitter has been, with a regular data dump and so on.

Qatar is not well known for paying people to bot on social media. They play the RT game by using their news network Al Jazeera to do that instead and give their propaganda a professional air. The first country to do this was India[1]. Israel has special units in the army to do this[2]. At this point so many countries pay people to do what you say, but Qatar doesn't, from what I can tell. If you have proof of it, I'm all ears.

I was cautiously optimistic when this was announced that India and Saudi Arabia (among others, incl. Qatar) might see some pushback on how they clamp down on free speech and journalism on social media. But since Zuck mentioned Europe, I fear those countries will continue as they did before.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP_IT_Cell

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896

How is that different from fact checkers? They can also be driven by large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion?

Only the name "Community Notes" is less misleading then "Fact checkers".

Fact checkers are employed by Meta?

And you are trying to say that makes it better?

Sure, I'll trust the leadership of this huge commercial company, famous for lots of controversies reagarding privacy of people. I'll trust them to decide for me what is true and what is not.

Great idea!

You can just pay people, regardless of their place of employment.

Who are pushed by the government to censor vaccine side effects:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/10/mark-zuckerberg-says-biden-p...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com