[petargyurov]

This is a very myopic take on things.

> dictate truth

What about the damage done by the millions of lies that people post on the platform to spread their bigoted agendas? What about how these platforms' algorithms ostensibly promote hatred and shocking material?

Just look at the Rohingya massacre [0] and tell me you're OK with it.

[0] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

[naturalpb]

Opting for community notes rather than provably biased fact-checkers is akin to massacre, got it.

[bayindirh]

That’s a shallow take. Opting for community notes without any fact checking will transform truth from facts to “loudest voice”. So, who can yell louder will be accepted as the flag of truth, which is very dangerous.

Of course, if you like your propaganda well-done, Facebook will be a great place for that.

[ChocolateGod]

I've found X's community notes for the most part to be informative and "neutral", they're usually used to add context to posts when people cut the important parts out.

[bayindirh]

The feature was not bad when it was first introduced, but I don't know how it fares against brigading and more targeted psyops by bigger actors.

Also are we absolutely sure that community notes have immunity from moderators and they're not manipulated in any way?

Community notes are indeed a good feature at first blush, but considering the current climate of "freedom of speech / post-truth / let's move fast and break society norms", it's more dangerous than a group of allegedly biased fact checkers.

It's a way of deregulating the social media platforms to level of utilities which carry whatever passes through them without prejudice, and shifting blame to the people for believing what they read.

The thing they're designing is very ripe for manipulating people en masse.

[naturalpb]

You're right, it's a shallow take in response to a straw man of my position. Clearly content moderation is a HARD problem and the decision-makers at Facebook know this better than almost anyone. They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest, of which I happen to support.

[louthy]

> They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest

They're making a decision based on political pressure.

[nailer]

How do you know? Occam's razor suggest that the fact checkers did indeed veer too far left of the American public.

[bayindirh]

From here, Occam’s razor suggest that big companies want to be cozy with the new president, so they can continue getting what they want.

Money doesn’t care about wings.

[louthy]

> Occam's razor

* Trump has explicitly threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg [1]

* Trump has threatened to use the justice system against his enemies

* Trump's 'best mate' (who's about to get a job in government) owns a rival social network

* Facebook banned Trump over the Jan 6th insurrection

* Trump could use the banning of TikTok as leverage

With all that Occam's Razor tells you that an authoritarian leader is taking over the USA and the oligarchy that are the tech-billionaires are lining up behind him lest they feel his wrath.

These are extremely dangerous times for the US. An authoritarian leader paired with an extreme concentration of power (the tech companies). You have something approaching a turnkey feudal system. With willing participants.

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-threatens-to-impriso...

[petargyurov]

Not sure what anyone here gains from a reductive comment like this. In case it wasn't clear, obviously that's not what I'm saying -- I was curious why you'd be OK with a reduction in fact checking when the platform is a means to such despicable acts.