Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company's moderation policies and practices, saying that the election felt like a "cultural tipping point."
Honestly didn’t know Facebook even had a fact-checker system. They are pretty explicit in their mission to sow discord and disinformation, it’s basically their whole business model
They are pretty explicit in their mission to sow discord and disinformationmaximize profits and minimize costs
With Trumpism taking over the federal government wholesale, there’s little reason to even pretend to cater to the minority party. Unless there’s a shift during the midterms, of course. Then Zuck will rediscover religion and insist the content on his site needs to be moderated by liberals again.
But its all just patronage. These moderation jobs are either soul-sucking gig work or no-show positions for the local professional political leadership. The work isn’t a profit center so it only exists as a means of assuaging regulators or cultivating cronies. Facebook’s real work is in harvesting data for Nat.Sec and gulling suckers with ads. Nothing else matters.
I entirely agree, except I don’t think it has anything to with maximizing profits for Facebook. If it did, then the logical thing to do is whatever gets the most people on the site the fastest, not do something that instantly alienates a massive amount of people. It does have everything to do with maximizing profits for those in charge of running the Facebook show, though. Then it makes perfect sense to align the company with whatever political regime can promise the most bloody money for the new yacht and underage ‘entertainment’.
Also, I genuinely think the Zuck gets off on being a slimy little cunt and is probably really excited right now. Facebook has always been a little too quick to go down the scummy road, even for capitalism.
the logical thing to do is whatever gets the most people on the site the fastest
With over 2.1 billion (with a B) active users, they’ve saturated the market. The game now is to avoid regulatory constraints and to maximize revenue per-user, which means degrading the experience in pursuit of the most lucrative individual users.
It does have everything to do with maximizing profits for those in charge of running the Facebook show, though. Then it makes perfect sense to align the company with whatever political regime can promise the most bloody money for the new yacht and underage ‘entertainment’.
A big part of the Facebook model is predicated on national surveillance paying them for access to their data. That’s what gives the 2.1B active users real tangible value - they’re subjects of surveillance. Sucking up to the people who cut the national security checks is a necessary part of that model.
Also, I genuinely think the Zuck gets off on being a slimy little cunt
I’m sure plenty of folks on Facebook do. But Zuck himself seems to have largely checked out, not unlike billionaires like Bezos and Gates, now that he’s got more money than he could spend in a thousand lifetimes. He’s off living his best life with his unlimited financial resources, and only pops in to make announcements like this as an investor celebrity.
the logical thing to do is whatever gets the most people on the site the fastest, not do something that instantly alienates a massive amount of people
Not true. Facebook knows no one is leaving (at least not in any significant numbers). So what makes them money is showing ads. What allows them to show more ads is people staying on the site longer. What keeps people on the site longer is “engagement”. The easiest way to keep people “engaged” is to sow discord.
Just think about it, are you more inclined to comment on an image of a cute puppy, or a post where someone is spreading disinformation?
Honestly its probably for the best. When people started investigating the “Fact checkers”, it was discovered that they didn’t know anything about the checks that were attributed to them.
I mean that’s a problem… but it sounds like the problem gets worse.
Realistically fact checking always lies in the problem of how do we know the fact checkers aren’t corrupted. Unfortunately popular vote seems just as dangerous way of trying to back it.
Huh. Facebook would never either knowingly or because they are money grubbing POSs hire incompetent fact checkers and then when their incompetency comes to light use that as an excuse to scrap the whole thing… Never!
Looking forward to the next pandemic where vaccines aren’t even developed because the Facebook rabble demands politicians provide us all with crystals and horoscopes instead.
Threads app today is flooded with tons of obviously false news posts about Zuckerberg and Meta like zuck is dead, zuck is gay, zuck is californian arsonist, zuck sold meta, zuck is trans - all kinds of nonsense shit people posting, with pictures, because okay yeah, the US doesn’t need fact checking so lets blow it up through the roof then.
And its the perfect response to Meta’s bending the knee and bootlicking.
Nope. It’s a US election, Trump appeasement thing. Meta replaced Nick Clegg (a UK liberal) with a Republican (Kaplan) for global affairs lead and this came out a few days later. A few days before they donated $1m to the inauguration ceremony. Prior to this, there was talk of Trump being pretty annoyed with Meta.
This is all shameful capitulation and political appeasement. They really teaching politicians how to do politics.
In order to avoid political confrontation, they sold all those that wanted a safe space.
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)
Nothing stopping meta from adjusting or hiding the vote count later. Hundreds of ways to fiddle with that thing, some really subtle and would not generate drama.
I’m pretty sure the current reason to remove the fact checking is so the company is not put on a collision course with government, a government that will lie so much daily it will break all records.
So, just because they can alter the community notes does not mean they will
and, what happens when say the community overwhelms, say a conservative facebook group, could add a community note saying “the geese are dissapearing near hatian communities, and there are x missing cats and dogs”. While voting against notes actually reporting the Mayor, Police etc… having denied the claims and also noting that the missing animals are normal for any region of said size.
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.
Community Notes are good, but they’re never a complete replacement for paid work. And my second paragraph is based on some notable incidents on X; it’s not just “oh it’s only bad because it’s on Facebook”.
Honestly didn’t know Facebook even had a fact-checker system. They are pretty explicit in their mission to sow discord and disinformation, it’s basically their whole business model
With Trumpism taking over the federal government wholesale, there’s little reason to even pretend to cater to the minority party. Unless there’s a shift during the midterms, of course. Then Zuck will rediscover religion and insist the content on his site needs to be moderated by liberals again.
But its all just patronage. These moderation jobs are either soul-sucking gig work or no-show positions for the local professional political leadership. The work isn’t a profit center so it only exists as a means of assuaging regulators or cultivating cronies. Facebook’s real work is in harvesting data for Nat.Sec and gulling suckers with ads. Nothing else matters.
I entirely agree, except I don’t think it has anything to with maximizing profits for Facebook. If it did, then the logical thing to do is whatever gets the most people on the site the fastest, not do something that instantly alienates a massive amount of people. It does have everything to do with maximizing profits for those in charge of running the Facebook show, though. Then it makes perfect sense to align the company with whatever political regime can promise the most bloody money for the new yacht and underage ‘entertainment’.
Also, I genuinely think the Zuck gets off on being a slimy little cunt and is probably really excited right now. Facebook has always been a little too quick to go down the scummy road, even for capitalism.
With over 2.1 billion (with a B) active users, they’ve saturated the market. The game now is to avoid regulatory constraints and to maximize revenue per-user, which means degrading the experience in pursuit of the most lucrative individual users.
A big part of the Facebook model is predicated on national surveillance paying them for access to their data. That’s what gives the 2.1B active users real tangible value - they’re subjects of surveillance. Sucking up to the people who cut the national security checks is a necessary part of that model.
I’m sure plenty of folks on Facebook do. But Zuck himself seems to have largely checked out, not unlike billionaires like Bezos and Gates, now that he’s got more money than he could spend in a thousand lifetimes. He’s off living his best life with his unlimited financial resources, and only pops in to make announcements like this as an investor celebrity.
Not true. Facebook knows no one is leaving (at least not in any significant numbers). So what makes them money is showing ads. What allows them to show more ads is people staying on the site longer. What keeps people on the site longer is “engagement”. The easiest way to keep people “engaged” is to sow discord.
Just think about it, are you more inclined to comment on an image of a cute puppy, or a post where someone is spreading disinformation?
Honestly its probably for the best. When people started investigating the “Fact checkers”, it was discovered that they didn’t know anything about the checks that were attributed to them.
I mean that’s a problem… but it sounds like the problem gets worse.
Realistically fact checking always lies in the problem of how do we know the fact checkers aren’t corrupted. Unfortunately popular vote seems just as dangerous way of trying to back it.
Fact checkers don’t have to be expert on the subject, often all it requires is some googling and a quick glimpse at some research paper.
No, people reading scholastic documents and drawing the wrong conclusions is how we got into this mess.
Yeah, because Google is completely nonbiased.
Note the lowercase “googling”. Nobody says “duckduckgoing”, “binging”, “yahooing”, or even “searnging”.
Huh. Facebook would never either knowingly or because they are money grubbing POSs hire incompetent fact checkers and then when their incompetency comes to light use that as an excuse to scrap the whole thing… Never!
The fact checkers were not incompetent, they weren’t involved at all.
Why should ziozuck pay to fail when he can fail for free?
For a moment I thought I was on 4chan, I has real whiplash hah
What’s next for that absolute cesspool?
Looking forward to the next pandemic where vaccines aren’t even developed because the Facebook rabble demands politicians provide us all with crystals and horoscopes instead.
We also not getting any real medications prescribed, but weights, raw meat, and some grifter’s vitamin supplements.
This truly is a new age of Enlightenment for humanity!
Context:
Remove liberal global affairs, replace with Republican: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw785585wo
Donation to Trump inauguration and more context: https://apnews.com/article/meta-facts-trump-musk-community-notes-413b8495939a058ff2d25fd23f2e0f43
Trump appeasement. Looks like he’s still pissed he was banned. Meta looking desperate.
Just doing what their elderly conservative user base demands.
Threads app today is flooded with tons of obviously false news posts about Zuckerberg and Meta like zuck is dead, zuck is gay, zuck is californian arsonist, zuck sold meta, zuck is trans - all kinds of nonsense shit people posting, with pictures, because okay yeah, the US doesn’t need fact checking so lets blow it up through the roof then.
And its the perfect response to Meta’s bending the knee and bootlicking.
I’m guessing this is a cost thing. You don’t need to pay for fact checking anymore.
… still obnoxious and pushing us towards a dead echo chamber internet. Get ready for AI personalities voting on community notes.
Nope. It’s a US election, Trump appeasement thing. Meta replaced Nick Clegg (a UK liberal) with a Republican (Kaplan) for global affairs lead and this came out a few days later. A few days before they donated $1m to the inauguration ceremony. Prior to this, there was talk of Trump being pretty annoyed with Meta.
This is all shameful capitulation and political appeasement. They really teaching politicians how to do politics.
In order to avoid political confrontation, they sold all those that wanted a safe space.
No, this is to make it even easier to spread disinformation.
I was in the trenches of Twitter’s community notes, useful notes were downvoted in favor of funny ones, and also had a bot/brigading problem.
By design, just like Meta’s decision.
unless you can opt out of community notes like you can turn off comments then what’s the point? i’ll just stop posting (i pretty much already do)
Honestly not a bad idea. The community notes are easier to trust and typically more accurate anyway.
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
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.
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.
Yes, and reddit has massive centralized ban squads that suppress dissent.
Nothing stopping meta from adjusting or hiding the vote count later. Hundreds of ways to fiddle with that thing, some really subtle and would not generate drama.
I’m pretty sure the current reason to remove the fact checking is so the company is not put on a collision course with government, a government that will lie so much daily it will break all records.
So, just because they can alter the community notes does not mean they will
and, what happens when say the community overwhelms, say a conservative facebook group, could add a community note saying “the geese are dissapearing near hatian communities, and there are x missing cats and dogs”. While voting against notes actually reporting the Mayor, Police etc… having denied the claims and also noting that the missing animals are normal for any region of said size.
In a capitalist society, you get much better quality when you pay someone their living to do that.
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?
And who certified the international fact checking network!?
International Board of Fact-Checking
And who fact checks the International Board of Fact-Checking?!
They are periodically reviewed by the International Congress of Fact Checking Board Auditors
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.
Community Notes are good, but they’re never a complete replacement for paid work. And my second paragraph is based on some notable incidents on X; it’s not just “oh it’s only bad because it’s on Facebook”.
Yeah, and with the added context of other things Meta has done over the past few days, we can plainly see what this is about.
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?
It’s a great way to get facts if you want your facts to be accurate less than half of the time.