Facebook and Instagram get rid of fact checkers

[Nearly Sane]

Following on from Twitter, and citing Trump's election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly74mpy8klo

[SqueakyVoice]

Thoughts  from Zuckerberg, 'I keeping thinking that Facebook wasn't as good as X, because it isn't worth as much and I'm only the 3rd wealthiest man boy in the world. But now to become even Richier, I decided to modify my face book into an even bigger cess pit than X twitter is. That will help me make sure that all those (nearly) bald monkey tribes will keep fighting each other and make me richerer again.

[ad_orientem]

Thoughts  from Zuckerberg, 'I keeping thinking that Facebook wasn't as good as X, because it isn't worth as much and I'm only the 3rd wealthiest man boy in the world. But now to become even Richier, I decided to modify my face book into an even bigger cess pit than X twitter is. That will help me make sure that all those (nearly) bald monkey tribes will keep fighting each other and make me richerer again.

That's about it. The new post-truth world, where anything bullshit can be true because some geezer on social media said it.

[Nearly Sane]

That's about it. The new post-truth world, where anything bullshit can be true because some geezer on social media said it.

Just to note that one effect of the change of policy is that people won't be restricted for 'misgendering' people so the previous approach was already post truth.

[ad_orientem]

Just to note that one effect of the change of policy is that people won't be restricted for 'misgendering' people so the previous approach was already post truth.

One good thing then. Can't see many others though.

[jeremyp]

 

chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said third-party moderators were "too politically biased" and it was "time to get back to our roots around free expression".

Yeah, what he means is that he has to pay a salary to a "third party moderator".

This is could be a good thing IMO. People need to understand that social media cannot be trusted. Anything that moves the needle in that direction is OK by me.

[Nearly Sane]

One good thing then. Can't see many others though.

The problem is that it shows that this isn't really about fact checking, indeed calling it fact checking isn't correct, it's about what opinions should be expressed. As jeremyp's post highlights, people shouldn't be relying on what is on the Internet, and just because there are people called fact checkers doesn't mean that FB was any more reliability to be placed on it.

This is part of a much wider discussion about what should be allowed on social media, and while I'm not sure it improves things, I'm not convinced it has made things worse.

[ad_orientem]

The problem is that it shows that this isn't really about fact checking, indeed calling it fact checking isn't correct, it's about what opinions should be expressed. As jeremyp's post highlights, people shouldn't be relying on what is on the Internet, and just because there are people called fact checkers doesn't mean that FB was any more reliability to be placed on it.

This is part of a much wider discussion about what should be allowed on social media, and while I'm not sure it improves things, I'm not convinced it has made things worse.

I understand your point. Social media has always been a cesspit but I do think it has got worse. The reason for that being, it seems social media network owners are now unwilling to do anything about it. So instead of hiding away on 4chan, all the lunatics are now able to do what they do in the open. This affects us normal users.

[Nearly Sane]

I understand your point. Social media has always been a cesspit but I do think it has got worse. The reason for that being, it seems social media network owners are now unwilling to do anything about it. So instead of hiding away on 4chan, all the lunatics are now able to do what they do in the open. This affects us normal users.

But censoring opinions on specific political grounds doesn't help that, and calling it fact checking is lying. There were lots of vicious threats allowed on twitter before Musk but they were allowed due to them being seen as OK within the politics of the previous owner.


ETA none of that means that I think where we are now is ideal but it may be a necessary stage to get to somewhere where it might be better. A lot of this comes down to there not being a clear idea on how social media should be regulated, or what it means to own a social media platform in terms of responsibility.

[Aruntraveller]

Well, I know fact-checking isn't perfect but what's the alternative?

Oh wait this breaking news just in:

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I know fact-checking isn't perfect but what's the alternative?

Oh wait this breaking news just in:

But it isn't fact checking. It's opinion censoring. Now that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen but presenting it as objective is simply a lie.

[Aruntraveller]

But it isn't fact checking. It's opinion censoring. Now that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen but presenting it as objective is simply a lie.

I wasn't really commenting on that. Just a joke.

My opinion of their fact-checking is pretty low. Anything you report just gets thrown back at you as "meeting community standards". Worse than useless.

I don't share your hope that this will in some way help to spur an improvement of social media. It won't.

The only thing I've got left is to take the piss out of Zuck & Musk.

It's a thoroughly depressing state of affairs, with nothing but disaster as an outcome.

[Nearly Sane]

I wasn't really commenting on that. Just a joke.

My opinion of their fact-checking is pretty low. Anything you report just gets thrown back at you as "meeting community standards". Worse than useless.

I don't share your hope that this will in some way help to spur an improvement of social media. It won't.

The only thing I've got left is to take the piss out of Zuck & Musk.

It's a thoroughly depressing state of affairs, with nothing but disaster as an outcome.

It's not really a hope. It's just that I'm not convinced it makes anything worse, and that removing this pretence of objectivity at least makes it clear what is happening.

[Aruntraveller]

It's not really a hope. It's just that I'm not convinced it makes anything worse, and that removing this pretence of objectivity at least makes it clear what is happening.

I think it does.

The fact that they intend to push political posts more (and if you have looked at X lately you'll likely know what that means) makes me want to scrape my fingernails down a blackboard in despair.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it does.

The fact that they intend to push political posts more (and if you have looked at X lately you'll likely know what that means) makes me want to scrape my fingernails down a blackboard in despair.

And yet the 'fact checking' was about censoring things such as already covered 'misgendering' - so the 'fact checking' was already pushing a political view under the guise of objectivity, or again as already covered lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it isn't fact checking. It's opinion censoring. Now that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen but presenting it as objective is simply a lie.

It is much, much more complicated than that.

People on social media rarely say 'my opinion is X, or Y' - indeed 'opinions' are often not overtly voiced at all - they are hidden in a kind of dog whistle way around claimed 'facts' which may or may not be actually true. And those claimed 'facts', often also selectively picked (inconvenient facts which do not support the opinion and agenda of the poster are conveniently ignored or not amplified).

Indeed problematic posts may do nothing more than share someone else's claimed fact, without giving (overtly) an opinion whatsoever - although the sharing of the post speaks volumes about the 'opinion' of the sharer. And that's why it really is important that the facts are just that - facts. Not fake news purporting as true etc as that 'fake' news is used to drive opinion.

So if someone simply shares, retweets etc a claimed new story that 100 children were killed in Gaza by an Israeli air strike on a hospital - it is likely clear the opinion of the person making that choice to share/retweet, although they may voice no opinion in their post whatsoever - merely claiming something as 'fact'. And it is important therefore that the news, the facts so-to-speak, are actually true.

[Nearly Sane]

It is much, much more complicated than that.

People on social media rarely say 'my opinion is X, or Y' - indeed 'opinions' are often not overtly voiced at all - they are hidden in a kind of dog whistle way around claimed 'facts' which may or may not be actually true. And those claimed 'facts', often also selectively picked (inconvenient facts which do not support the opinion and agenda of the poster are conveniently ignored or not amplified).

Indeed problematic posts may do nothing more than share someone else's claimed fact, without giving (overtly) an opinion whatsoever - although the sharing of the post speaks volumes about the 'opinion' of the sharer. And that's why it really is important that the facts are just that - facts. Not fake news purporting as true etc as that 'fake' news is used to drive opinion.

So if someone simply shares, retweets etc a claimed new story that 100 children were killed in Gaza by an Israeli air strike on a hospital - it is likely clear the opinion of the person making that choice to share/retweet, although they may voice no opinion in their post whatsoever - merely claiming something as 'fact'. And it is important therefore that the news, the facts so-to-speak, are actually true.

I don't disagree with any of that but that doesn't change that what is being called fact checking neither checks all facts as is implied, nor is it limited to being about facts rather it covers a lot of opinion censoring, see the issue of 'misgendering'.

It is naive to see what has been withdrawn as a neutral objective process as the term fact checking implies
 

[Nearly Sane]

I think it does.

The fact that they intend to push political posts more (and if you have looked at X lately you'll likely know what that means) makes me want to scrape my fingernails down a blackboard in despair.

More detail on this

.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyjyd0297go


It doesn't warm my heart but I will note that even with the current position FB's timeline is virtually unusable because of the sponsored content, and recommendations, as well as its continued inability to display friend's posts in an time ordered fashion. I find myself using WhatsApp as the only way to keep in touch with friend groupings now.

[Nearly Sane]

Got surveyed by YouGov on whether people should be allowed to opt out of political content on social media. I answered yes, as I think you should be able to opt out of any specific content. The current figures are

[ProfessorDavey]

Got surveyed by YouGov on whether people should be allowed to opt out of political content on social media. I answered yes, as I think you should be able to opt out of any specific content. The current figures are

While this seems fair enough in theory seems rather more complicated in practice.

Firstly, and probably most importantly, how do you define what is, and what is not, political content and who would make that decision.

But also, would this cover both content received directly and shared through someone else - e.g. a Facebook friend. And finally I imagine there are plenty of people whose opinion on receiving political content is time and topic defined - happy to receive stuff on changing our electoral system, but really don't want stuff on assisted dying. Happy to see stuff in the run up to an election, but not at other times.

I think we already have the tools to remove/block content, but the problem is that these are retrospective - you can only act to block something (or something similar) once you've received this in the first place.

[ad_orientem]

A thought! Since Facebook no longer has fact checkers, I guess one could post this without any consequences? Just saying.

[ad_orientem]

A thought! Since Facebook no longer has fact checkers, I guess one could post this without any consequences? Just saying.

Same goes for Twitter.

[Nearly Sane]

Same goes for Twitter.

It's fairly obvious Musk removes or restricts people that annoy him and if you look on that as a consequence then there would be some. The removal of 'fact checkers' doesn't really make any difference to legal consequences beyond that. I would be surprised if Musk or Zuckerberg would pursue a legal claim on the basis of any such posts but see the Truss thread, and we do seem to live in surprising as well as interesting times.

[ad_orientem]

It's fairly obvious Musk removes or restricts people that annoy him and if you look on that as a consequence then there would be some. The removal of 'fact checkers' doesn't really make any difference to legal consequences beyond that. I would be surprised if Musk or Zuckerberg would pursue a legal claim on the basis of any such posts but see the Truss thread, and we do seem to live in surprising as well as interesting times.

You may be right but it's interesting. It was grey before but now even greyer. Is everything allowed or is it not?  What worries me more though, is that both platforms are even more open to Russian and Chinese disinfo than ever before. We already know this can have a big impact on domestic politics and the outcome of elections. Right now Musk is ampifying nazis in Germany.

[Nearly Sane]

You may be right but it's interesting. It was grey before but now even greyer. Is everything allowed or is it not?  What worries me more though, is that both platforms are even more open to Russian and Chinese disinfo than ever before. We already know this can have a big impact on domestic politics and the outcome of elections. Right now Musk is ampifying nazis in Germany.

or he's supporting a legal party standing in the elections