[starkd]

I fear FB is trying to "thread the needle" a bit too finely here. In the process, they are becoming arbiters of content. I feel like a little kid in school being told what's good for me. There's a healthy skepticism of our public officials that should be encouraged. Many of their fact checks delve into opinion and are more complex than simply true/false/or missing context.

[ethbr0]

Facebook et al. should have looked at "fact checking" as a product, rather than a (voluntary) regulatory compliance measure.

There's a pretty straight line for them to deliver value through it via crowd sourcing, in a way they're uniquely positioned to.

Instead, the current implementation is basically a Section 230 PR stunt to deflect public outrage ('Sure we have terrible things on our platform, but see, they have a warning!').

[starkd]

It's more than just a nuisance though. It comes off as arrogance to their users and a big brother feel to it. Not sure crowd sourcing would be any better, because it would involve people "ganging up" on each other and would be inflammatory. Fact-checking involves somebody's own search for truth. There's an independence to searching things out, feeling along for sources you trust. Trust isn't gained by a simple textbox warning.

[lldbg]

I think that generally people are in favour of so called "fact" checking, if the results of that fact checking align with their beliefs. As a silly analogy, how about a road that gave you a thumbs up when you had the right of way? The platform is an authority, and we like authority to echo our own beliefs.

[starkd]

ah, yes, not always easy to tell the difference between fact and opinion.