There are public resources available; from what I understand Bloomberg did a report on this a little while back? My evidence is anecdotal and only referenced against third-party reports of the same kind of content. There is one that I think is kind of funny, which I'll link to here:
Grapes on the vine bit? Sure. But Jesus turned water into Wine? That's closer to truth? No, it's closer to a well-known consensus. Whether you believe in god, or not, you know the bible story and find it inoffensive (playing the averages with that "you"). So the Community Note stands. But does it correct the invalidities of the tweet? No. Does it do anything meaningful at all, other than brand the tweet as "unaligned with our community's thoughts"? No it doesn't. So why wasn't a better Community Note chosen? Whatever reason you come up with: that reason is part of the failure. Whether it was "for the lulz" or just because it was "palatable", it doesn't matter.
For a more serious example, you can look at the kind of Community Note attached to Jordan Neely's death. How did that note add context? In what was was it more truthful? Does every video of a person need the context that it doesn't include their actual death, or is that only for people who recently died? If so, when should the note be removed? And, honestly, why was it helpful in the first place? Who needed that information? That a bunch of people can agree that a note is "not incorrect" doesn't mean that a note should be applied.
This is the problem with criticizing Community Notes - or anything that actually deals in truth. If you say anything about it, you are attacking something that people have put trust in. Which is to say, you are attacking their trust and self-confidence in said trust. I understand that is frustrating for you, but I'm not passionate about this at all. I would love for Community Notes to be a better idea than it is. I'm sure someone will come up with a way for it to be. But until then, I'm going to call out the complexities of the complications as best I can, without regard to how it will frustrate anyone's trust.
Put simply, if you have a problem with one of my "lots of assertions", we may be able to discuss it directly. But dismissing them all is not a good way to start.
> Even if less than one percent of misinformative tweets get a note providing context or correcting them, Community Notes is still providing an exceedingly valuable service as an educational tool. The goal is not to correct everything; rather, the goal is to remind people that multiple perspectives exist, that certain kinds of posts that look convincing and engaging in isolation are actually quite incorrect, and you, yes you, can often go do a basic internet search to verify that it's incorrect.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/594/136/8d7...
Grapes on the vine bit? Sure. But Jesus turned water into Wine? That's closer to truth? No, it's closer to a well-known consensus. Whether you believe in god, or not, you know the bible story and find it inoffensive (playing the averages with that "you"). So the Community Note stands. But does it correct the invalidities of the tweet? No. Does it do anything meaningful at all, other than brand the tweet as "unaligned with our community's thoughts"? No it doesn't. So why wasn't a better Community Note chosen? Whatever reason you come up with: that reason is part of the failure. Whether it was "for the lulz" or just because it was "palatable", it doesn't matter.
For a more serious example, you can look at the kind of Community Note attached to Jordan Neely's death. How did that note add context? In what was was it more truthful? Does every video of a person need the context that it doesn't include their actual death, or is that only for people who recently died? If so, when should the note be removed? And, honestly, why was it helpful in the first place? Who needed that information? That a bunch of people can agree that a note is "not incorrect" doesn't mean that a note should be applied.
This is the problem with criticizing Community Notes - or anything that actually deals in truth. If you say anything about it, you are attacking something that people have put trust in. Which is to say, you are attacking their trust and self-confidence in said trust. I understand that is frustrating for you, but I'm not passionate about this at all. I would love for Community Notes to be a better idea than it is. I'm sure someone will come up with a way for it to be. But until then, I'm going to call out the complexities of the complications as best I can, without regard to how it will frustrate anyone's trust.
Put simply, if you have a problem with one of my "lots of assertions", we may be able to discuss it directly. But dismissing them all is not a good way to start.