Meta to bin off Factcheckers

[55palfers]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/07...

This can't be good surely?

[fat80b]

I think it might be good.

The current system as I understand it involves teams of paid people responding to reports and removing posts. It's expensive, inefficient, and doesn't work.

I have reported a whole bunch of FB posts (mostly scams) in the past and every single time, the response from FB has been "we have taken no action" - i.e. the current system doesn't work.

Conversely, on X, the community notes thing does seem to actually work in that clear BS gets noted pretty quickly. If they can do something similar on FB where a flagged post gets picked up by the millions of community members instead of the small number of FB people, then it might actually be better than the current implementation.

[Vanden Saab]

Why? You prefer censorship to be on a political rather than harm basis.

[glazbagun]

I read it as "to save money and increase engagement and thus ad revenue, we're axing fact-checking and letting our users argue it out."

[Funk]

It will become, like X, even more of a cess-pit.

Social media sites come and go, it's just taking a bit longer with these two for them to die.

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 7th January 16:59

[bitchstewie]

It's political ready for Trump.

[chrispmartha]

Facebook is only really good for the local area Facebook groups they are absolutely hilarious - not intentionally.

[tangerine_sedge]

glazbagun said:

I read it as "to save money and increase engagement and thus ad revenue, we're axing fact-checking and letting our users argue it out."

This. They've seen Twitter get away with it, and fancy a quick money-saving exercise.

[off_again]

glazbagun said:

I read it as "to save money and increase engagement and thus ad revenue, we're axing fact-checking and letting our users argue it out."

That is most likely to be closer to the reason. Reduce headcount, save money and keep on the good side of the incoming Trump administration. And if he can profit from this? Yeah, its going to happen.

Does a system like community notes work? Take a look at this:

https://community-notes-leaderboard.com/

Elon himself appears at number 49. He is a terrible contributor to this list with his constant lies and misinformation that even if it has a community note attached, doesnt stop him from posting anyway. Top contributors to the list? Conspiracy theorists, health misinformation and right-wing nut jobs who blatantly lie - and yet they get clicks and from what I can see are all blue tick users, so are monetizing this attention.

Community notes is an interesting experiment. Leave the policing to the people on the platform (again, to increase profit as you no longer have to pay to do this). The problem is that it is be slow to react, doesnt address the core of the problem (as in stopping people spreading misinformation and lies) and can easily be abused anyway,

We are seeing lies spread in seconds, amplified by those who have interest in it, all before a community note even appears. When the note appears, its too late. The damage is done and the lie propagated. And any attempt to provide transparency around this is dismissed as a conspiracy to block the truth.

Does moderation solve this? Clearly not. Is moderation a better system? At least something can happen in some situations, but it still cannot react fast enough. Nah, I have some experience on how Twitter of old did some of its controls of the abuse of the platform - machine learning, threat intel and some sophisticated algorithms to limit and control fake new accounts and bots following to boost spread and engagement. Twitter has always had this problem and steps were taken to try and mitigate them. Problem is that Musk overturned a lot of this and bots are now prevalent on the platform. Musk claims its less than 5%, but independent analysis shows the real number is around 30%!

Community notes is limited feature that doesnt address the core of the problem (I just mentioned bot accounts, there are so many other threats!). Facebook moving to this model is only going to open the door to more abuse.

While there continues to be a financial incentive to lie and misinform on these platforms, it is going to continue. Community notes will not fix this, neither will moderation. A sophisticated approach needs to be taken to address this, but of course, the owners of these platforms can just say 'free speech' and can do nothing and reap the financial rewards.

Billionaires care little of what happens and how this might impact society. They want to maintain their position, power, control and money. Because when you have F-You money, come the collapse of society, they will be absolutely fine while we are fighting to survive....

[JagLover]

Vanden Saab said:

Why? You prefer censorship to be on a political rather than harm basis.

This basically

We saw this during the pandemic when apparently the only way to establish Scientific Truth was some arts graduate "factchecker" making sure everything conformed to the narrative of the time.

Just because a service is described as a "fact checker" does not mean they have any interest in ensuring that facts are objectively presented in the public domain.

As for Zuckerberg he just moves with the political tides. When it is politically convenient he has Clegg in a senior role and a "fact checker" team to ensure approved narratives on his platform. When that changes Clegg gets the boot and Republican supporters are in the senior roles. He cares about his platform and making money.

[durbster]

Basically they've asked Trump not to regulate them and he's agreed. They don't have to pretend they're trying to deal with the proliferation of misinformation any more.

It's in Trump's interest because fact checkers are an obstacle for a man who's entire existence is built on lies, and it's in the interest of social media owners because they can profit from the engagement that comes from division and chaos.

It's bad news for everyone else.

The ensttification of the internet continues.

[dundarach]

Let's be honest, if you're stupid enough to a: spend any real time on Facebook and b: then consider it as anything more than a graffiti covered pub toilet door, does it really matter!

The very phrase 'Facebook fact checkers' is sadly symptomatic of the obvious collapse in civilisation

Whatever next, 'a calm, sensible none opinioned discussion on Pistonheads, with all the facts and an OP who sticks around'

World's gone mad!

[grumbledoak]

If I thought there was any integrity involved I'd be asking "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" but this is all for show because he censored Trump for the Democrats and now Trump will be President and might choose to be petty.

[Derek Smith]

I've been told that Zuckerberg has changed a great deal since he became a eunuch, suddenly grew a third arm, and converted to christian scientist. And everyone of these is true. You will read it on FB soon.

[Byker28i]

There's a post of the new rules
https://bsky.app/profile/klonick.bsky.social/post/...

Meta quietly updated its hateful conduct policy to allow users to refer to "women as household objects or property" among other offensive language.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/meta-hatef...

and





A reminder that Zuckerberg got upset with the algorithm after it limited his post about his knee surgery
https://www.wsj.com/tech/social-media-companies-de...

Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 8th January 08:38

[Byker28i]

At the same time there's claims Meta is deleting posts about it's management, and posts about those deleted posts
https://www.404media.co/facebook-deletes-internal-...

[Byker28i]

Derek Smith said:

I've been told that Zuckerberg has changed a great deal since he became a eunuch, suddenly grew a third arm, and converted to christian scientist. And everyone of these is true. You will read it on FB soon.

Already being tested...
https://thehardtimes.net/culture/mark-zuckerberg-r...

[Byker28i]

durbster said:

Basically they've asked Trump not to regulate them and he's agreed. They don't have to pretend they're trying to deal with the proliferation of misinformation any more.

It's in Trump's interest because fact checkers are an obstacle for a man who's entire existence is built on lies, and it's in the interest of social media owners because they can profit from the engagement that comes from division and chaos.

It's bad news for everyone else.

The ensttification of the internet continues.

Not only that but trump was threatening social media that didn't fall into line with him, same as he's threatened to withdraw the licence of media companies that report on his crimes etc.
Hence why so many are falling in line for the next 4 years. $1m donations to the inauguration fund, the one that trump misused last time, as his personal piggy bank

Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 8th January 08:41

[Carl_VivaEspana]

dundarach said:

Let's be honest, if you're stupid enough to a: spend any real time on Facebook and b: then consider it as anything more than a graffiti covered pub toilet door, does it really matter!

The very phrase 'Facebook fact checkers' is sadly symptomatic of the obvious collapse in civilisation

Whatever next, 'a calm, sensible none opinioned discussion on Pistonheads, with all the facts and an OP who sticks around'

World's gone mad!

too right !

[heebeegeetee]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

dundarach said:

Let's be honest, if you're stupid enough to a: spend any real time on Facebook and b: then consider it as anything more than a graffiti covered pub toilet door, does it really matter!

The very phrase 'Facebook fact checkers' is sadly symptomatic of the obvious collapse in civilisation

Whatever next, 'a calm, sensible none opinioned discussion on Pistonheads, with all the facts and an OP who sticks around'

World's gone mad!

too right !

I'd disagree. I've returned to PH having given up on X. You can have sensible discussions on PH. People talking complete nonsense or are spreading misinformation are laughed out and told to do one. Even the focus on spelling and grammar is useful because it keeps the idiots out who struggle to string a sentence together.

On the topic of misinformation, I think this is what the FB story is about, the spread of misinformation. Maybe this is now the game, in ways it wasn't before, and it's definitely spreading to mainstream media too, imo. (The Daily Telegraph being the prime example in my sphere).