Hilarious! Move the moderation team to Texas to reduce "concern about the bias of our teams." I can't even comprehend the stupidity of this bit. Like somehow lines on a map affect the bias of a...
Hilarious! Move the moderation team to Texas to reduce "concern about the bias of our teams."
I can't even comprehend the stupidity of this bit. Like somehow lines on a map affect the bias of a person? Who believes this garbage?
California had 6M+ votes for Trump (almost 40% - 3rd highest vote count for him behind Texas and Florida), Texas 4.8M+ votes for Harris (almost 43% - 2nd highest vote count for her behind California). These are not cut and dried divisions of politics. I really think the electoral college and media maps that show entire states red or blue has skewed people's ability to comprehend nuance in the political/physical space.
It’s silly if you take it at face value, but it’s mainly political. Meta is making these moves to pre-empt these discussion points being made by a Republican led Congress, who is definitely not...
It’s silly if you take it at face value, but it’s mainly political. Meta is making these moves to pre-empt these discussion points being made by a Republican led Congress, who is definitely not above making bad-faith arguments as leverage. Mirroring Twitter’s notes is also a savvy move, since criticism of Meta will also seem like criticism of Twitter, which may earn Musk’s ire, who is now a powerful voice in Republican spheres.
It's both political and stupid. Suggesting that the content moderation team is no longer biased from an optics POV simply because they relocated from California to Texas is asinine.
It's both political and stupid. Suggesting that the content moderation team is no longer biased from an optics POV simply because they relocated from California to Texas is asinine.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. That doesn't seem ridiculous, that seems like a savvy thing to do when you know how the incoming government is going to act. The face value of the...
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. That doesn't seem ridiculous, that seems like a savvy thing to do when you know how the incoming government is going to act. The face value of the actions is ridiculous, if you see the intent as truly to be "less biased". But Meta's actual goal is to avoid political reprisal, and moving your content moderation team to Texas seems like a pretty cheap way to buy some both a shield and a sword.
"We will cave in advance to our fears regarding the biases of the incoming administration, rather than put up the tiniest fragment of resistance to their arbitrary and unfounded claims."...
"We will cave in advance to our fears regarding the biases of the incoming administration, rather than put up the tiniest fragment of resistance to their arbitrary and unfounded claims."
Completely feckless. A company choosing to be a political windvane by accommodating in advance is only a survival technique for so long in the face of a fascist government. After that, you're either riding the tiger or you're a meal.
Either way, being accommodating isn't actually a long term survival choice.
The Volkswagen car was a national project to get people into car ownership and score big with the general public. Facebook through Meta is not state-owned, quite the opposite. Unless you count all...
The Volkswagen car was a national project to get people into car ownership and score big with the general public. Facebook through Meta is not state-owned, quite the opposite. Unless you count all the taxes they avoid as state-sponsorship. Turns out American big Corpos are just commies afterall ;) /s
Whilst I don't like it, I do agree with @stu2b50. I imagine the folks still on Facebook tend to skew towards trumpism more than the contrary anyway, so zuck can appease the incoming government and...
Whilst I don't like it, I do agree with @stu2b50. I imagine the folks still on Facebook tend to skew towards trumpism more than the contrary anyway, so zuck can appease the incoming government and his dwindling user base in one move.
Not to be too snarky, but those are basically going to be synonymous for the 2020's. People are still mad at biden because of gas prices from 3 years ago. The "big" conversation right now with the...
Not to be too snarky, but those are basically going to be synonymous for the 2020's. People are still mad at biden because of gas prices from 3 years ago. The "big" conversation right now with the incumbent is about trying to grab Greenland.
In a world of insantity, who is truly the sane one?
Of course it is! Zuck is lining up with the rest of the oligarchs so he can get in on the ground floor of the new society they're "building" for all of us. My point was that these are OBVIOUS lies...
It’s silly if you take it at face value, but it’s mainly political.
Of course it is! Zuck is lining up with the rest of the oligarchs so he can get in on the ground floor of the new society they're "building" for all of us.
My point was that these are OBVIOUS lies stated to hide the real intent and make it palatable to your average shallow-thinking FB user.
The real reason is that he can abuse employees easier in Texas than in California. He can also play grown up CEO with Elon and Trump.
I find the "reasoning" mind-numbingly stupid and deserving of all the mocking any of us with half a brain can muster. Understanding that there's another motive, and it might make "smart political sense" does not mean it's a good motive AT ALL nor is it something that is necessarily a good, long-term strategic decision. It's pandering to an incoming administration to curry favor and hope that some crumbs fall their way. That's it.
Q: Do you think Zuckerberg is responding to the threats you've made to him in the past? TRUMP: Probably. Yeah. Probably. https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lf66oltlvs2l
Q: Do you think Zuckerberg is responding to the threats you've made to him in the past?
Winner takes all in general is the antithesis to nuance. But the sad thing is that very few people wish for nuance. They saw inflation being high and groceries going up and maybe jobs impacted and...
Winner takes all in general is the antithesis to nuance. But the sad thing is that very few people wish for nuance. They saw inflation being high and groceries going up and maybe jobs impacted and they choose to blame all that on Biden. Then they are given answers that are borderline lies by Trump, but are simple to communicate ("we'll make China pay for it. Tarriffs are like a tax on other countries"). And then regardless of the fallibility of those statements, there's already cracks of Trumps real plans that are going back on his promise, before he's even inaugurated.
This is all to say that we'd be in a very different situation if any sort of subtly or slightly critical thinking was prioritized in the general populace. But the US, much like its people, are reacionary, not preventative. No one appreciates (or even insults them as hippies) the forest rangers mitigating fires before they start, but hail firefighters as heroes for putting out the fires that happen (no disrespect to the fire fighters. Just one of the simpler comparisons I can make).
It seems like Twitter’s Community Notes got a fair amount of respect, at least before Musk took over. Conceptually, imitating it doesn’t seem like a bad thing? What remains to be seen is whether...
It seems like Twitter’s Community Notes got a fair amount of respect, at least before Musk took over. Conceptually, imitating it doesn’t seem like a bad thing?
What remains to be seen is whether Facebook can improve on it, or whether it will be a shoddy imitation. I’m pessimistic by default about most Facebook initiatives, but my crystal ball is cloudy. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.
Perhaps another way of thinking about it is that they are moving from paid third-party fact-checkers to volunteers. That's probably bad, but then again, Wikipedia and Twitter's community notes are...
Perhaps another way of thinking about it is that they are moving from paid third-party fact-checkers to volunteers.
That's probably bad, but then again, Wikipedia and Twitter's community notes are also based on volunteers.
Yeah it's bad. Twitter is horrible. Wikipedia is tightly controlled and moderated even by volunteers. It's Ask Historians compared to Twitter's 4chan. Facebook has no incentive or inclination to...
Yeah it's bad. Twitter is horrible. Wikipedia is tightly controlled and moderated even by volunteers. It's Ask Historians compared to Twitter's 4chan. Facebook has no incentive or inclination to be the former.
What makes you so inclined to defend this particular move?
That's certainly fair. You did sort of a "that doesn't seem so bad" along with your "wait and see" that made me think you were more inclined to think it was likely positive even with some hedging...
That's certainly fair. You did sort of a "that doesn't seem so bad" along with your "wait and see" that made me think you were more inclined to think it was likely positive even with some hedging and I was just trying to see if there was something I was missing there
The way I see it is that we're speculating about what's going to happen when Facebook tries to follow this plan. I like to keep both good and bad scenarios in mind when speculating. And yes, this...
The way I see it is that we're speculating about what's going to happen when Facebook tries to follow this plan. I like to keep both good and bad scenarios in mind when speculating.
And yes, this is also a bit contrarian, just because it's easier to imagine how it could go wrong and that's what many people will write about. But I'm aiming towards keeping an open mind rather than taking the opposite side.
One news story based on Facebook's PR about something that hasn't happened yet isn't a lot to go on. The PR isn't necessarily the same as what they'll actually do, so we're reading tea leaves.
I understand being contrarian and also wanting to keep an open mind, but I do think Wikipedia is a poor comparison due to their much more complex editorial structure - they weight expertise and...
I understand being contrarian and also wanting to keep an open mind, but I do think Wikipedia is a poor comparison due to their much more complex editorial structure - they weight expertise and sources more heavily, and Twitter is much better one, especially given how much propaganda and awfully bigoted material exists on Facebook already.
While we can only guess at the specifics I think the broad outlines are much clearer based on past precedent. Facebook is already a miserable experience. Twitter is unbearable. Any move by the former towards the latter seems destined for negative outcomes to me. And it replicates the "don't piss off Trump" vibes that all the tech billionaires seem to be aiming for these days and that's frustrating too.
Anyway I understand where you're coming from, I just think sometimes you're a bit too optimistic about outcomes.
I think you need to self-reflect a bit. Brian made one response to you after making a comprehensive overview of the situation and you view that as defending facebook. But we can alo acknoledge our...
What makes you so inclined to defend this particular move?
I think you need to self-reflect a bit. Brian made one response to you after making a comprehensive overview of the situation and you view that as defending facebook.
But we can alo acknoledge our biases yes. We are on a forum ultimately moderated by a single individual with community "fact checkers" to maintain such style of moderation. It's clearly not an objective bad if we choose to participate here.
I'm referring to his original post more than his reply, he seemed more inclined to defend it from the jump. It was a genuine question not a gotcha. What do you think I should reflect on here?
I'm referring to his original post more than his reply, he seemed more inclined to defend it from the jump. It was a genuine question not a gotcha. What do you think I should reflect on here?
yes, and I feel it's comprehensive. first paragraph: twitter's notes are praised second paragraph: Can Facebook not screw it up? "I'm pessimistic by default" the latter seems to reveal more about...
I'm referring to his original post more than his reply
yes, and I feel it's comprehensive.
first paragraph: twitter's notes are praised
second paragraph: Can Facebook not screw it up? "I'm pessimistic by default"
the latter seems to reveal more about their expectations than the former. So I don't see why you'd jump to saying they are a defender simply because the first paragraph exists.
Skybrian and I had a good conversation about it, and he described himself as "a bit contrarian" which may be what I was picking up on. But you're basically just disagreeing with my interpretation...
Skybrian and I had a good conversation about it, and he described himself as "a bit contrarian" which may be what I was picking up on. But you're basically just disagreeing with my interpretation of someone else's post and maybe my tone was misread, which I apologize for as I didn't tag it as /gen. Either way, you can disagree and I can be wrong, but this progressed elsewhere.
But I'm not sure how this is something I need to do self-reflection on or what I'm missing there. That my interpretation could be wrong? I don't typically tell folks to be introspective anytime I think they might be incorrect.
Yes. More specifically, how you decided to express it. Correctness doesn't matter here. In the words of Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!". (movie quote, so don't take that...
you're basically just disagreeing with my interpretation of someone else's post
Yes. More specifically, how you decided to express it.
I don't typically tell folks to be introspective anytime I think they might be incorrect.
Correctness doesn't matter here. In the words of Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!". (movie quote, so don't take that tone too close to heart). In short: attack the argument, not the subject.
I'm not on reddit and have higher expectations for how people compose themselves here. Tried early on to do that on reddit communities (I suppose over a decade ago now) and I'd just be Gish galloped on by people who don't care about tone or even feel that that was simply the way to discuss on Reddit. One of the many reason I no longer have a reddit account.
But I'm not sure how this is something I need to do self-reflection on or what I'm missing there.
in a space that does care about such language, going straight to "why are you so determined to defend Facebook?" after a single reply feels very "reddit-esque", no? Someone looking to find a 'gotcha' instead of exchange ideas and find curiosities? That's pretty much the start of why certain conversations simply start to be filtered out instead of addressing the community itself. If I misinterpreted that, I apologize. But I don't really see too many contexts where that sort of tone is acceptable, especially after such a short exchange.
On this community I at least hope highlighting such behavior will help others introspect and self-correct. And no, I'm not perfect either. I've had bad days. I'd appreciate someone pointing those days out rather than assuming I'm simply a combative person.
So as I noted it sounds like my tone was being misread, it was a genuine question not an attacking one, and you think I jumped to a conclusion. I was not "gotcha-ing" I truly felt the way I did...
So as I noted it sounds like my tone was being misread, it was a genuine question not an attacking one, and you think I jumped to a conclusion. I was not "gotcha-ing" I truly felt the way I did and asked the question I want to ask.
Upon reflection, I don't think I was being an asshole here. I understand why you misread me and it's why tone tags are important. Perhaps your past experience on reddit that you shared primed you in that way as well. I can't say. But while I appreciate the reminder to mark /gen when people might think I'm being sarcastic, next time feel free to just ask me if I'm being genuine. Generally I am. I try to mark the sarcasm at least.
So yeah, sorry I triggered reddit memories, but I hope that helps you understand my perspective
I wish it was in the past. I was trying to talk to someone on youtube about game development less than an hour ago. It just ended with them questioning my experience and re-re-re asserting that...
Perhaps your past experience on reddit that you shared primed you in that way as well.
I wish it was in the past. I was trying to talk to someone on youtube about game development less than an hour ago. It just ended with them questioning my experience and re-re-re asserting that they want game X (the video wasn't even about market research. It was about game testing and feedback. No, the irony does not escape me).
Honestly, the general internet's only gotten more aggressive in the past decade. But I digress.
Sorry, reddit was a decade ago per you, and you were referencing it. I guess it's your past experience on reddit and/or your present experience on YouTube? I'm not sure I understand your point...
I wish it was in the past. I was trying to talk to someone on youtube about game development less than an hour ago. It just ended with them questioning my experience and re-re-re asserting that they want game X (the video wasn't even about market research. It was about game testing and feedback. No, the irony does not escape me).
Honestly, the general internet's only gotten more aggressive in the past decade. But I digress.
Sorry, reddit was a decade ago per you, and you were referencing it. I guess it's your past experience on reddit and/or your present experience on YouTube?
I'm not sure I understand your point given the initial post that created this subthread. I'm sorry the YouTube comments are toxic? I feel like I was engaging you in good faith and I'm not sure where this went.
I'm just ranting tangentially at this point. None of this general atmosphere is your fault. I don't really have much else to respond to you specifically with. We have different perspectives on...
I'm just ranting tangentially at this point. None of this general atmosphere is your fault.
I don't really have much else to respond to you specifically with. We have different perspectives on internet ettiquite, and that's assumedly fine as long as Deimos doesn't see anything amiss. Take care.
Ok, I guess I'll just reiterate that if you have questions about my intentions, I'd rather you ask me about them then assume them. I feel like I'm catching strays tbh
Ok, I guess I'll just reiterate that if you have questions about my intentions, I'd rather you ask me about them then assume them.
Didn't he open it up, pretty sure Birdwatch was only for select users. I'm hugely in favor of community notes, I much prefer it over centralized authority because nobody gets to whine about who's...
At least before Musk took over.
Didn't he open it up, pretty sure Birdwatch was only for select users.
I'm hugely in favor of community notes, I much prefer it over centralized authority because nobody gets to whine about who's behind it.
Article title aside (CNs/"Birdwatch" pre-date Musk), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/30/elon-musk-x-fact-check-community-notes-misinformation/ Can't deny the optics of community...
I think for most audiences around the world, it's a lot more serious that Meta'll still remove a hint of a nipple, but not remove blatantly false state-sponsored political propaganda. In many...
I think for most audiences around the world, it's a lot more serious that Meta'll still remove a hint of a nipple, but not remove blatantly false state-sponsored political propaganda.
In many countries I don't think these changes will go over well.
In the US, maybe a portion of the population will think this is less "censorship" although a much larger group seem to be seriously concerned about how social media platforms run their operations and how their algorithms are turning many of our brains to mush.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company's moderation policies and practices Tuesday, citing a shifting political and social landscape and a desire to embrace free speech.
Zuckerberg said that Meta will end its fact-checking program with trusted partners and replace it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes.
"Free speech" these days seems to mean "People are free to lie with no accountability". With the Trump administration desirous of eliminating regulations designed to safeguard Americans (FDIC,...
Exemplary
"Free speech" these days seems to mean "People are free to lie with no accountability".
With the Trump administration desirous of eliminating regulations designed to safeguard Americans (FDIC, anyone? Imagine 2008 but where everyone with money in a failed bank loses all of their money), this all seems to be a power grab favoring capitalist snake oil salesmen (for non-Americans, this means "people selling garbage claiming it's a miracle cure without any system/safeguards to protect buyers").
We're headed for an age of caveat emptor this nation hasn't seen in a century or more. Ignorance of any form will be preyed upon mercilessly. Given that our society and economy is so much more complex than it was 100+ years ago, everyone will be vulnerable to the scams that will (soon, legally) befall us.
We're headed for peak socializing of losses and centralizing of gains.
I wish it were just that. In practice, Elon "Free Speech Absolutist" Musk constantly bans people who criticize him, and Trump has openly stated he intends to wield the govt against unfriendly...
"Free speech" these days seems to mean "People are free to lie with no accountability".
I wish it were just that. In practice, Elon "Free Speech Absolutist" Musk constantly bans people who criticize him, and Trump has openly stated he intends to wield the govt against unfriendly media.
"Free speech" is not a term the right is currently using in good faith.
in all fairness, "Free Speech" was never designed to protect us from scams. It was mostly to protect from government oppression, as well as prevent situations of mass hysteria (the ol' "yell fire...
in all fairness, "Free Speech" was never designed to protect us from scams. It was mostly to protect from government oppression, as well as prevent situations of mass hysteria (the ol' "yell fire in a movie theatre" example).
But yes, we theoretically solved this idea of false advertisement decaade ago (on the federal level, even), but the issue is that tech moves so fast that it's nearly impossible to really hold anyone accountable with the current system. If you have the funds or sympathy to even start a case, by the time it's done, the scam may have made more money than the court ruling for that individual or small group. Nothing's been done to adjust such a judicial system, and odds are any controls will get weaker in coming years.
Progressives upset conservatives. Atheists upset religious folks. You can't please everyone. But instead of accepting other views, people are very quick to point out that their opinion cannot be...
Progressives upset conservatives. Atheists upset religious folks. You can't please everyone. But instead of accepting other views, people are very quick to point out that their opinion cannot be shared so therefore their freedom of speech is impaired. That's lunacy.
I wish people were more accepting of different views. More tolerant to their neighbors and less affected by something that brushes up against their ideas.
Except the context here is they're removing fact-checking to apparently embrace free speech. This is basically a roundabout way of saying they're enabling disinformation. This isn't a matter of...
Except the context here is they're removing fact-checking to apparently embrace free speech. This is basically a roundabout way of saying they're enabling disinformation. This isn't a matter of allowing people to share unpopular opinions in order to share views. They can already do that. That doesn't require removing fact-checking.
There has been a long-established pattern, since 2015, of diluting the conversation by pretending that being opposed to extremely heinous statements, dangerous disinformation, and more is an attack on free speech.
Pretty much! And I agree that that is very dangerous. Meta chucking away it's fact-checking team saves them money and could be seen as a victory for the conspiracy nuts. And it tells me that the...
Pretty much! And I agree that that is very dangerous. Meta chucking away it's fact-checking team saves them money and could be seen as a victory for the conspiracy nuts. And it tells me that the Zuck's moral compass is simply pointing towards money.
Not intending to start an argument; merely curious. Do you actually believe that any CEO, especially a CEO of a social media empire, cares about anything but money?
Not intending to start an argument; merely curious.
Do you actually believe that any CEO, especially a CEO of a social media empire, cares about anything but money?
I think there are plenty of people leading companies who care about actually making the world better or even just treating their employees well. I think the issue is that the companies who tend to...
I think there are plenty of people leading companies who care about actually making the world better or even just treating their employees well. I think the issue is that the companies who tend to get huge are the ones lead by probable-sociopaths with a singular goal of profit. Because those people will fuck over everyone else to increase their bank balance/share value/market share/etc where the more ethical operators will not. So guess who rises to the top...
I have a friend who works for Meta and according to them (having been in meetings with the guy) Mark Zuckerberg absolutely does believe Meta is actively making the world a better place. It's just that Zuck's idea of how to do that is radically different from mine (and I assume yours too). It really isn't all about the money for him. I mean, I'm not saying it isn't about money plenty of the time because obviously it is. But it's not the only thing.
Sure they do. Musk didn't buy Twitter to make a profit. Money is merely a medium for the actual lofty goals people may have. Usually lobbying or otherwise influencing policy on a scale that the...
especially a CEO of a social media empire, cares about anything but money?
Sure they do. Musk didn't buy Twitter to make a profit. Money is merely a medium for the actual lofty goals people may have. Usually lobbying or otherwise influencing policy on a scale that the biggest celebrities can only dream of.
The "ethical ones" may simply want to indulge in a few yatchs or buy a private island or something. They already drained the working class or captured the market away from competition. But at least they aren't putting money into making it easier to drain them.
Hilarious! Move the moderation team to Texas to reduce "concern about the bias of our teams."
I can't even comprehend the stupidity of this bit. Like somehow lines on a map affect the bias of a person? Who believes this garbage?
California had 6M+ votes for Trump (almost 40% - 3rd highest vote count for him behind Texas and Florida), Texas 4.8M+ votes for Harris (almost 43% - 2nd highest vote count for her behind California). These are not cut and dried divisions of politics. I really think the electoral college and media maps that show entire states red or blue has skewed people's ability to comprehend nuance in the political/physical space.
It’s silly if you take it at face value, but it’s mainly political. Meta is making these moves to pre-empt these discussion points being made by a Republican led Congress, who is definitely not above making bad-faith arguments as leverage. Mirroring Twitter’s notes is also a savvy move, since criticism of Meta will also seem like criticism of Twitter, which may earn Musk’s ire, who is now a powerful voice in Republican spheres.
It's both political and stupid. Suggesting that the content moderation team is no longer biased from an optics POV simply because they relocated from California to Texas is asinine.
How so? Republican already used that line of attack the last time they hauled Zuckerberg into a hearing.
That doesn't make it logical. This is just ridiculous kowtowing to a political regime and it should be mocked accordingly.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. That doesn't seem ridiculous, that seems like a savvy thing to do when you know how the incoming government is going to act. The face value of the actions is ridiculous, if you see the intent as truly to be "less biased". But Meta's actual goal is to avoid political reprisal, and moving your content moderation team to Texas seems like a pretty cheap way to buy some both a shield and a sword.
"We will cave in advance to our fears regarding the biases of the incoming administration, rather than put up the tiniest fragment of resistance to their arbitrary and unfounded claims."
Completely feckless. A company choosing to be a political windvane by accommodating in advance is only a survival technique for so long in the face of a fascist government. After that, you're either riding the tiger or you're a meal.
Either way, being accommodating isn't actually a long term survival choice.
Volkswagen is still around to this day!
The Volkswagen car was a national project to get people into car ownership and score big with the general public. Facebook through Meta is not state-owned, quite the opposite. Unless you count all the taxes they avoid as state-sponsorship. Turns out American big Corpos are just commies afterall ;) /s
Ok, fair. There is a needle that could be threaded. But many failed.
Whilst I don't like it, I do agree with @stu2b50. I imagine the folks still on Facebook tend to skew towards trumpism more than the contrary anyway, so zuck can appease the incoming government and his dwindling user base in one move.
Not to be too snarky, but those are basically going to be synonymous for the 2020's. People are still mad at biden because of gas prices from 3 years ago. The "big" conversation right now with the incumbent is about trying to grab Greenland.
In a world of insantity, who is truly the sane one?
Of course it is! Zuck is lining up with the rest of the oligarchs so he can get in on the ground floor of the new society they're "building" for all of us.
My point was that these are OBVIOUS lies stated to hide the real intent and make it palatable to your average shallow-thinking FB user.
The real reason is that he can abuse employees easier in Texas than in California. He can also play grown up CEO with Elon and Trump.
I find the "reasoning" mind-numbingly stupid and deserving of all the mocking any of us with half a brain can muster. Understanding that there's another motive, and it might make "smart political sense" does not mean it's a good motive AT ALL nor is it something that is necessarily a good, long-term strategic decision. It's pandering to an incoming administration to curry favor and hope that some crumbs fall their way. That's it.
Q: Do you think Zuckerberg is responding to the threats you've made to him in the past?
TRUMP: Probably. Yeah. Probably.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lf66oltlvs2l
Probably more like:
Trump: "Less moderation, or I nix the TikTok ban"
Zuck: "Yeah, ok, less moderation is definitely a hi IQ play"
Winner takes all in general is the antithesis to nuance. But the sad thing is that very few people wish for nuance. They saw inflation being high and groceries going up and maybe jobs impacted and they choose to blame all that on Biden. Then they are given answers that are borderline lies by Trump, but are simple to communicate ("we'll make China pay for it. Tarriffs are like a tax on other countries"). And then regardless of the fallibility of those statements, there's already cracks of Trumps real plans that are going back on his promise, before he's even inaugurated.
This is all to say that we'd be in a very different situation if any sort of subtly or slightly critical thinking was prioritized in the general populace. But the US, much like its people, are reacionary, not preventative. No one appreciates (or even insults them as hippies) the forest rangers mitigating fires before they start, but hail firefighters as heroes for putting out the fires that happen (no disrespect to the fire fighters. Just one of the simpler comparisons I can make).
It seems like Twitter’s Community Notes got a fair amount of respect, at least before Musk took over. Conceptually, imitating it doesn’t seem like a bad thing?
What remains to be seen is whether Facebook can improve on it, or whether it will be a shoddy imitation. I’m pessimistic by default about most Facebook initiatives, but my crystal ball is cloudy. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.
Removing the fact checking is what is being seen as the bad thing.
Perhaps another way of thinking about it is that they are moving from paid third-party fact-checkers to volunteers.
That's probably bad, but then again, Wikipedia and Twitter's community notes are also based on volunteers.
Yeah it's bad. Twitter is horrible. Wikipedia is tightly controlled and moderated even by volunteers. It's Ask Historians compared to Twitter's 4chan. Facebook has no incentive or inclination to be the former.
What makes you so inclined to defend this particular move?
Not exactly defend. I want to see how it plays out before judging.
That's certainly fair. You did sort of a "that doesn't seem so bad" along with your "wait and see" that made me think you were more inclined to think it was likely positive even with some hedging and I was just trying to see if there was something I was missing there
The way I see it is that we're speculating about what's going to happen when Facebook tries to follow this plan. I like to keep both good and bad scenarios in mind when speculating.
And yes, this is also a bit contrarian, just because it's easier to imagine how it could go wrong and that's what many people will write about. But I'm aiming towards keeping an open mind rather than taking the opposite side.
One news story based on Facebook's PR about something that hasn't happened yet isn't a lot to go on. The PR isn't necessarily the same as what they'll actually do, so we're reading tea leaves.
I understand being contrarian and also wanting to keep an open mind, but I do think Wikipedia is a poor comparison due to their much more complex editorial structure - they weight expertise and sources more heavily, and Twitter is much better one, especially given how much propaganda and awfully bigoted material exists on Facebook already.
While we can only guess at the specifics I think the broad outlines are much clearer based on past precedent. Facebook is already a miserable experience. Twitter is unbearable. Any move by the former towards the latter seems destined for negative outcomes to me. And it replicates the "don't piss off Trump" vibes that all the tech billionaires seem to be aiming for these days and that's frustrating too.
Anyway I understand where you're coming from, I just think sometimes you're a bit too optimistic about outcomes.
I think you need to self-reflect a bit. Brian made one response to you after making a comprehensive overview of the situation and you view that as defending facebook.
But we can alo acknoledge our biases yes. We are on a forum ultimately moderated by a single individual with community "fact checkers" to maintain such style of moderation. It's clearly not an objective bad if we choose to participate here.
I'm referring to his original post more than his reply, he seemed more inclined to defend it from the jump. It was a genuine question not a gotcha. What do you think I should reflect on here?
yes, and I feel it's comprehensive.
first paragraph:
twitter's notes are praisedsecond paragraph:
Can Facebook not screw it up? "I'm pessimistic by default"the latter seems to reveal more about their expectations than the former. So I don't see why you'd jump to saying they are a defender simply because the first paragraph exists.
Skybrian and I had a good conversation about it, and he described himself as "a bit contrarian" which may be what I was picking up on. But you're basically just disagreeing with my interpretation of someone else's post and maybe my tone was misread, which I apologize for as I didn't tag it as /gen. Either way, you can disagree and I can be wrong, but this progressed elsewhere.
But I'm not sure how this is something I need to do self-reflection on or what I'm missing there. That my interpretation could be wrong? I don't typically tell folks to be introspective anytime I think they might be incorrect.
Yes. More specifically, how you decided to express it.
Correctness doesn't matter here. In the words of Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!". (movie quote, so don't take that tone too close to heart). In short: attack the argument, not the subject.
I'm not on reddit and have higher expectations for how people compose themselves here. Tried early on to do that on reddit communities (I suppose over a decade ago now) and I'd just be Gish galloped on by people who don't care about tone or even feel that that was simply the way to discuss on Reddit. One of the many reason I no longer have a reddit account.
in a space that does care about such language, going straight to "why are you so determined to defend Facebook?" after a single reply feels very "reddit-esque", no? Someone looking to find a 'gotcha' instead of exchange ideas and find curiosities? That's pretty much the start of why certain conversations simply start to be filtered out instead of addressing the community itself. If I misinterpreted that, I apologize. But I don't really see too many contexts where that sort of tone is acceptable, especially after such a short exchange.
On this community I at least hope highlighting such behavior will help others introspect and self-correct. And no, I'm not perfect either. I've had bad days. I'd appreciate someone pointing those days out rather than assuming I'm simply a combative person.
So as I noted it sounds like my tone was being misread, it was a genuine question not an attacking one, and you think I jumped to a conclusion. I was not "gotcha-ing" I truly felt the way I did and asked the question I want to ask.
Upon reflection, I don't think I was being an asshole here. I understand why you misread me and it's why tone tags are important. Perhaps your past experience on reddit that you shared primed you in that way as well. I can't say. But while I appreciate the reminder to mark /gen when people might think I'm being sarcastic, next time feel free to just ask me if I'm being genuine. Generally I am. I try to mark the sarcasm at least.
So yeah, sorry I triggered reddit memories, but I hope that helps you understand my perspective
I wish it was in the past. I was trying to talk to someone on youtube about game development less than an hour ago. It just ended with them questioning my experience and re-re-re asserting that they want game X (the video wasn't even about market research. It was about game testing and feedback. No, the irony does not escape me).
Honestly, the general internet's only gotten more aggressive in the past decade. But I digress.
Sorry, reddit was a decade ago per you, and you were referencing it. I guess it's your past experience on reddit and/or your present experience on YouTube?
I'm not sure I understand your point given the initial post that created this subthread. I'm sorry the YouTube comments are toxic? I feel like I was engaging you in good faith and I'm not sure where this went.
I'm just ranting tangentially at this point. None of this general atmosphere is your fault.
I don't really have much else to respond to you specifically with. We have different perspectives on internet ettiquite, and that's assumedly fine as long as Deimos doesn't see anything amiss. Take care.
Ok, I guess I'll just reiterate that if you have questions about my intentions, I'd rather you ask me about them then assume them.
I feel like I'm catching strays tbh
Perhaps adding a boatload of self hosted AI bots will dilute that "community" commentary.
Didn't he open it up, pretty sure Birdwatch was only for select users.
I'm hugely in favor of community notes, I much prefer it over centralized authority because nobody gets to whine about who's behind it.
Article title aside (CNs/"Birdwatch" pre-date Musk), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/30/elon-musk-x-fact-check-community-notes-misinformation/
Can't deny the optics of community moderation vs. top-down censorship is better though.
I think for most audiences around the world, it's a lot more serious that Meta'll still remove a hint of a nipple, but not remove blatantly false state-sponsored political propaganda.
In many countries I don't think these changes will go over well.
In the US, maybe a portion of the population will think this is less "censorship" although a much larger group seem to be seriously concerned about how social media platforms run their operations and how their algorithms are turning many of our brains to mush.
It seems like free speech these days just means what agenda the owner wants to push.
"Free speech" these days seems to mean "People are free to lie with no accountability".
With the Trump administration desirous of eliminating regulations designed to safeguard Americans (FDIC, anyone? Imagine 2008 but where everyone with money in a failed bank loses all of their money), this all seems to be a power grab favoring capitalist snake oil salesmen (for non-Americans, this means "people selling garbage claiming it's a miracle cure without any system/safeguards to protect buyers").
We're headed for an age of caveat emptor this nation hasn't seen in a century or more. Ignorance of any form will be preyed upon mercilessly. Given that our society and economy is so much more complex than it was 100+ years ago, everyone will be vulnerable to the scams that will (soon, legally) befall us.
We're headed for peak socializing of losses and centralizing of gains.
I wish it were just that. In practice, Elon "Free Speech Absolutist" Musk constantly bans people who criticize him, and Trump has openly stated he intends to wield the govt against unfriendly media.
"Free speech" is not a term the right is currently using in good faith.
in all fairness, "Free Speech" was never designed to protect us from scams. It was mostly to protect from government oppression, as well as prevent situations of mass hysteria (the ol' "yell fire in a movie theatre" example).
But yes, we theoretically solved this idea of false advertisement decaade ago (on the federal level, even), but the issue is that tech moves so fast that it's nearly impossible to really hold anyone accountable with the current system. If you have the funds or sympathy to even start a case, by the time it's done, the scam may have made more money than the court ruling for that individual or small group. Nothing's been done to adjust such a judicial system, and odds are any controls will get weaker in coming years.
Progressives upset conservatives. Atheists upset religious folks. You can't please everyone. But instead of accepting other views, people are very quick to point out that their opinion cannot be shared so therefore their freedom of speech is impaired. That's lunacy.
I wish people were more accepting of different views. More tolerant to their neighbors and less affected by something that brushes up against their ideas.
Except the context here is they're removing fact-checking to apparently embrace free speech. This is basically a roundabout way of saying they're enabling disinformation. This isn't a matter of allowing people to share unpopular opinions in order to share views. They can already do that. That doesn't require removing fact-checking.
There has been a long-established pattern, since 2015, of diluting the conversation by pretending that being opposed to extremely heinous statements, dangerous disinformation, and more is an attack on free speech.
Pretty much! And I agree that that is very dangerous. Meta chucking away it's fact-checking team saves them money and could be seen as a victory for the conspiracy nuts. And it tells me that the Zuck's moral compass is simply pointing towards money.
Not intending to start an argument; merely curious.
Do you actually believe that any CEO, especially a CEO of a social media empire, cares about anything but money?
I believe that ethical billionaires don't exist, so no, neither will CEO's.
I think there are plenty of people leading companies who care about actually making the world better or even just treating their employees well. I think the issue is that the companies who tend to get huge are the ones lead by probable-sociopaths with a singular goal of profit. Because those people will fuck over everyone else to increase their bank balance/share value/market share/etc where the more ethical operators will not. So guess who rises to the top...
I have a friend who works for Meta and according to them (having been in meetings with the guy) Mark Zuckerberg absolutely does believe Meta is actively making the world a better place. It's just that Zuck's idea of how to do that is radically different from mine (and I assume yours too). It really isn't all about the money for him. I mean, I'm not saying it isn't about money plenty of the time because obviously it is. But it's not the only thing.
Sure they do. Musk didn't buy Twitter to make a profit. Money is merely a medium for the actual lofty goals people may have. Usually lobbying or otherwise influencing policy on a scale that the biggest celebrities can only dream of.
The "ethical ones" may simply want to indulge in a few yatchs or buy a private island or something. They already drained the working class or captured the market away from competition. But at least they aren't putting money into making it easier to drain them.