this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
300 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

60316 readers
3720 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Honestly not a bad idea. The community notes are easier to trust and typically more accurate anyway.

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Community notes are written and voted on by the community

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Because that's never gone wrong before

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

I trust that more than some random fact checkers tbh.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just look at front page on reddit. Basically half of the headlines are misleading.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A lot of the time there's a comment correcting the title or article at the top though. Pros and cons with that system.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because people don't go to the comments, they read the title on the front/subreddit page, sometimes vote and then move on.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Exactly my point in my comment above the other.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

Yes, and reddit has massive centralized ban squads that suppress dissent.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 2 days ago

In a capitalist society, you get much better quality when you pay someone their living to do that.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] zabadoh@ani.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

It's a great way to get facts if you want your facts to be accurate less than half of the time.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Better than partners certified by the International Fact-Checking Network?

[–] fannymcslap@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And who certified the international fact checking network!?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

International Board of Fact-Checking

[–] fannymcslap@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And who fact checks the International Board of Fact-Checking?!

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

They are periodically reviewed by the International Congress of Fact Checking Board Auditors

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

just search it up gal

is going to likely trust notes written by their peers

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?

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 22 hours ago

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”.