It’s broad consensus that’s featured there, so it manufactures consent less hard, and more importantly, the fact-check appears attaches to the original misinfo, so it gets reshared with it.
to me this just sounds like social media passing the buck to their users with no regard for accuracy. sure, whatever you guys want to believe, go for it.
I think you and the person you’re responding to both have a point. They’re totally passing the buck to their users, but their users will probably be better at putting accurate information than they are. It’s a different set of problems to be sure, but I think it’s a preferable one
but their users will probably be better at putting accurate information than they are.
“they” (Meta) was not the one fact-checking, it was a 3rd party service. And I don’t know why you assume a social media user base would be better at it, especially with highly politicized things like climate change, vaccines, wars, etc.
like social media passing the buck to their users with no regard for accuracy.
Lol this is the whole idea of the social networks - outsourcing of the work to the users (or “useds” as Stallman calls them). This used to be called “web 2.0”. In other news, this also highlights one of the shortcomings behind the idea of democracy.
Indeed. People are going to have to work hard to constantly be tackling misinformation like on X.
However it does present an opportunity. Perhaps a taste of their own medicine…
Post misinformation about the CEOs and the like, like I’ve seen a few articles recently about Zucc having sexual issues. Community notes could say it’s true if there’s enough votes or submissions or whatever 🤣
why is that? genuine question, don’t use twitter.
It’s broad consensus that’s featured there, so it manufactures consent less hard, and more importantly, the fact-check appears attaches to the original misinfo, so it gets reshared with it.
but broad consensus does not mean true.
to me this just sounds like social media passing the buck to their users with no regard for accuracy. sure, whatever you guys want to believe, go for it.
I think you and the person you’re responding to both have a point. They’re totally passing the buck to their users, but their users will probably be better at putting accurate information than they are. It’s a different set of problems to be sure, but I think it’s a preferable one
“they” (Meta) was not the one fact-checking, it was a 3rd party service. And I don’t know why you assume a social media user base would be better at it, especially with highly politicized things like climate change, vaccines, wars, etc.
And for free, no less!
Lol this is the whole idea of the social networks - outsourcing of the work to the users (or “useds” as Stallman calls them). This used to be called “web 2.0”. In other news, this also highlights one of the shortcomings behind the idea of democracy.
What does Facebook have now, a monarchy? Their moderators are way worse than Twitter fact-checking ever was.
And a tweet with a CN attached cannot be monetized.
Tweets can be monetised? I only know Twitter from screenshots.
It’s like YouTube, you can chose to show ads.
Crowd sourced fact checking so they don’t have to pay staff to do it.
Instead the “community” can brigade the “verification” and create an even louder echo chamber.
Indeed. People are going to have to work hard to constantly be tackling misinformation like on X.
However it does present an opportunity. Perhaps a taste of their own medicine…
Post misinformation about the CEOs and the like, like I’ve seen a few articles recently about Zucc having sexual issues. Community notes could say it’s true if there’s enough votes or submissions or whatever 🤣
Or like https://lemmy.world/post/24021828
If it’s about the CEOs we can digitally “luigi” them
Lemmy is also an echo chamber buddy
It’s better because people can post notes under the nonstop nazi propaganda. \s