Mark Zuckerberg: Fact-checking on Meta is too "politically biased"(hollywoodreporter.com)
hollywoodreporter.com
Mark Zuckerberg: Fact-checking on Meta is too "politically biased"
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/mark-zuckerberg-meta-ends-content-restrictions-restore-free-speech-1236102963/
117 comments
Ultimately: It can take some time for community notes to correct misinfo posts; by the time community notes gets to it, the firehose has ten more misinfo posts community notes needs to fix, the people who saw the original post rarely see the community notes correction, and given the algo has a massive temporal bias the original post was probably on the way out of new viewers feeds anyway.
Its a good system that should exist. It could probably be made better by finding any way to help it act faster (e.g. the moment a post is even in the process of community notes voting, attach a temporary banner like "The Community Notes people has suspicions about this post, it might be misinfo, we're doing our research").
Its a good system that should exist. It could probably be made better by finding any way to help it act faster (e.g. the moment a post is even in the process of community notes voting, attach a temporary banner like "The Community Notes people has suspicions about this post, it might be misinfo, we're doing our research").
I am not sure about that. I see a lot of posts that get CN proposed for bogus reasons that never see the light of day. This is usually done by interest groups who view CNs as another avenue of their strategies. These interest group CNs almost never see the light of day so I would strongly advocate for not putting warnings just because a rando attempted to put a CN on a post.
Imagine every post by Donal Trump getting a CN from a Democratic activist group or vice versa, every post by Kamala getting a CN by a Republican activist group. Every single post will have a warning on them if you get what you are proposing.
Imagine every post by Donal Trump getting a CN from a Democratic activist group or vice versa, every post by Kamala getting a CN by a Republican activist group. Every single post will have a warning on them if you get what you are proposing.
Use AI for all posts that have 10k views and do a scan for similar posts with embeddings
The best thing about community notes IMHO is that you get notified if something you liked previously has been community noted. Gives you a chance to reassess.
Yes same I think they're generally quite good and add important missing context to posts.
> I'm curious, what are HN's opinions around community notes on X/Twitter?
I notice that there are influence groups who are trying to play them, but so far I haven't seen them be successful. I see tons of proposed notes from certain groups but rarely do I see them actually be shown on X, so I guess it is robust in a way.
The main place it doesn't work is on popular polarizing accounts. For example, generally the followers of Elon Musk like him so if you try to correct him there, a bunch of his followers will just say the note is wrong even if it isn't, they vote out of loyalty to Elon. So polarizing large popular accounts generally cannot be community noted. Same applies to most political leaders.
So community notes is for correcting plebeians, not for the patricians.
I notice that there are influence groups who are trying to play them, but so far I haven't seen them be successful. I see tons of proposed notes from certain groups but rarely do I see them actually be shown on X, so I guess it is robust in a way.
The main place it doesn't work is on popular polarizing accounts. For example, generally the followers of Elon Musk like him so if you try to correct him there, a bunch of his followers will just say the note is wrong even if it isn't, they vote out of loyalty to Elon. So polarizing large popular accounts generally cannot be community noted. Same applies to most political leaders.
So community notes is for correcting plebeians, not for the patricians.
Yes, it's useless on really polarizing topics like Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine, immigration, and Elon Musk.
But it's really good when it's nerds debunking other nerds. It could maybe even be something that future peer-review systems can take inspiration from.
But it's really good when it's nerds debunking other nerds. It could maybe even be something that future peer-review systems can take inspiration from.
I'm not really a twitter user (I just get posts from friends occasionally), but I think community notes is actually an awesome feature for a social network.
Community notes don't work when there are small number of users for a particular topic.
For example, Indian Twitter/X user were posting with old/unrelated/fake photo/video saying Hindus are being killed in Bangladesh (after change of fascist government that was under controll of the indian government), hindus homes were burnt. None of them are true, but there are not enough Bangladeshi Twitter/X users to community note them.
For example, Indian Twitter/X user were posting with old/unrelated/fake photo/video saying Hindus are being killed in Bangladesh (after change of fascist government that was under controll of the indian government), hindus homes were burnt. None of them are true, but there are not enough Bangladeshi Twitter/X users to community note them.
>None of them are true
Maybe the community notes are working as intended.
"Hindus in Bangladesh Face Attacks After Prime Minister’s Exit": https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/world/asia/bangladesh-pol...
Maybe the community notes are working as intended.
"Hindus in Bangladesh Face Attacks After Prime Minister’s Exit": https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/world/asia/bangladesh-pol...
[deleted]
Community notes is the main reason I have not migrated to bluesky.
I'm really giving Bluesky a shot and I want it to succeed, but it really needs to be something more than a stronghold for the left. Maybe I've been put into some bubble already, but the vast majority of posts there are political. Some of the people there as rabid as their right-wing counterparts are on X.
I find it really hard to find posts that are not people raging/venting about Trump, Musk, some other right wing billionaires or left-wing cause. X is, ironically, more diverse on this front.
I find it really hard to find posts that are not people raging/venting about Trump, Musk, some other right wing billionaires or left-wing cause. X is, ironically, more diverse on this front.
idk what you are doing but my feed on bsky is mostly stuff that I'm interested in. The only time I saw stuff about Trump and Musk was when I didn't follow enough people or didn't subscribed to feeds.
Programming, mostly. Perhaps I'm not following enough people, though.
> The only time I saw stuff about Trump and Musk was when I didn't follow enough people or didn't subscribed to feeds.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the dominant topic of discussion there.
> The only time I saw stuff about Trump and Musk was when I didn't follow enough people or didn't subscribed to feeds.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the dominant topic of discussion there.
If the goal is to prevent, or limit the spread of "misinformation" community notes is a failure. I see community notes merely as additional context on what is now a wide open machine for spreading any information, regardless of truth.
I think they're potentially good, but are used nowhere near enough. So many posts on X simply do not have community notes attached, even though they contain misinformation and lies.
this reads like a twitter post.
Zuckerberg has a point but not a solution.
We do need to be able to discuss divisive topics on social media, and any single organization determining truth faces an impossible challenge. We shouldn't rely on the goodwill of Meta or the government as the basis for our trust on social media.
Community notes-style systems are... similar. Instead of a single group of people, we rely on a single algorithm/system to determine truth. At a minimum, such a system NEEDS to be open source. But even if it is, I seriously doubt any one algorithm will ever give us the low-effort high-accuracy truth heuristic we desperately need.
We need better models of trust/truth that support a rich ecosystem of personalized approximations of whether to trust or believe something.
We do need to be able to discuss divisive topics on social media, and any single organization determining truth faces an impossible challenge. We shouldn't rely on the goodwill of Meta or the government as the basis for our trust on social media.
Community notes-style systems are... similar. Instead of a single group of people, we rely on a single algorithm/system to determine truth. At a minimum, such a system NEEDS to be open source. But even if it is, I seriously doubt any one algorithm will ever give us the low-effort high-accuracy truth heuristic we desperately need.
We need better models of trust/truth that support a rich ecosystem of personalized approximations of whether to trust or believe something.
community notes often (at least on x) provide a link, some commentary and then it's up to you to make up your own mind.
Personally I find that 10x better than someone just deciding I shouldn't be seeing this.
Personally I find that 10x better than someone just deciding I shouldn't be seeing this.
Community notes do not claim to be the source of truthfulness at least by its name
Honestly, I think the real solution is far, far simpler: just have social media operate more 'privately'. My Bluesky feed shows me content from people I follow, that's it. I don't get extreme opinions forced upon me and, if I did, I would simply unfollow that person. It doesn't need any censorship in the same way email doesn't.
Same thing as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627
no fact-checking? how about giving a 3d party access to the facebook feed and using AI to find hate speech. https://www.psypost.org/new-machine-learning-model-finds-hat...
> “We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more,”
Nothing says American Freedom than interfering in how other governments conduct policy so you can push your own platform full of fake users and perpetual lies.
What an embarrassment. Maybe it's time said governments start just banning or outlawing these platforms if they're just going to flagrantly admit to doing what they can to bypass the law. Fuck em. As much as I hate tiktok the whole 'rules for thee but not for me' shtick is old.
Nothing says American Freedom than interfering in how other governments conduct policy so you can push your own platform full of fake users and perpetual lies.
What an embarrassment. Maybe it's time said governments start just banning or outlawing these platforms if they're just going to flagrantly admit to doing what they can to bypass the law. Fuck em. As much as I hate tiktok the whole 'rules for thee but not for me' shtick is old.
>Maybe it's time said governments start just banning or outlawing these platforms
They should and it's long overdue.
America, China, Russia and to a far lesser extent Japan and South Korea all have outsized political interference power upon other countries through the various social networks that operate out of them.
Any country with a desire to safeguard domestic politics against foreign interference and influence should be banning them without question and it should not be controversial.
They should and it's long overdue.
America, China, Russia and to a far lesser extent Japan and South Korea all have outsized political interference power upon other countries through the various social networks that operate out of them.
Any country with a desire to safeguard domestic politics against foreign interference and influence should be banning them without question and it should not be controversial.
Depends. My country doesn't moderate social networks in any way. Instead, it profiles people. Nationals who are not behaving get called, foreigners are turned in the border.
As expected, our posts are complying, you would think we live in Switzerland
As expected, our posts are complying, you would think we live in Switzerland
Americans take it as an article of faith that everyone wants to live like they do.
It must be utterly demoralising for anyone working at the US State department right now.
It must be utterly demoralising for anyone working at the US State department right now.
Fully agree. It's high time each own country had sovereign platforms.
I find your trust in politicians disturbing.
Very funny response because if you were doubtful of the fact checkers a few years ago you will be called a conspiracist
"Conspiracist" is a political label today, too.
Zuckerberg knows which way the winds are blowing in the US Capital and is ensuring he is aligned with them so to avoid political blowback on his company.
I suspect the changes to the fact checking / free speech will align with Trump's political whims. Thus fact checking will be gone on topics like vaccines, trans people, threats from immigrants, etc.
While the well documented political censorship at Meta affecting Palestine will remain because it does align with Trump's political whims...
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/29/m...
- https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...
I suspect the changes to the fact checking / free speech will align with Trump's political whims. Thus fact checking will be gone on topics like vaccines, trans people, threats from immigrants, etc.
While the well documented political censorship at Meta affecting Palestine will remain because it does align with Trump's political whims...
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/29/m...
- https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...
It’s at times like this we realise how much better our situation would be if the internet remained decentralised and not consolidated into a few “social networks”. We messed up.
How would decentralization make a difference here? Fact checking only makes sense when a platform has people with multiple different beliefs about what is true. If people can self-select into their own bubble, then it doesn't do anything, does it?
It would make a difference because there would be no political influence over broad public opinion.
Right now, the rich leadership of these social media networks are kissing the right wing ring, so get ready to be right winged for at least 4 years.
It's not healthy.
If we didn't have single owners of these platforms, then none of this would be happening.
Right now, the rich leadership of these social media networks are kissing the right wing ring, so get ready to be right winged for at least 4 years.
It's not healthy.
If we didn't have single owners of these platforms, then none of this would be happening.
No shit sherlock. Now the question is, are you going to be actually neutral or "Musk neutral" and just cater to the new guy in power?
There's nothing complex about Zuckerberg's statement.
He along with other US companies is "adapting" to the new reality that starts on 20th - so yeah, catering to the new guy. Hell, it's not just the corporate world - politicians in the western world also enabled "pampering" mode because they do remember with whom had to deal with last time.
I saw politicians in my country doing weird "acrobatics" which contradict what they were saying few weeks ago as well.
He along with other US companies is "adapting" to the new reality that starts on 20th - so yeah, catering to the new guy. Hell, it's not just the corporate world - politicians in the western world also enabled "pampering" mode because they do remember with whom had to deal with last time.
I saw politicians in my country doing weird "acrobatics" which contradict what they were saying few weeks ago as well.
Cater to the new guy in power. Zuckerberg has already been doing this for decades.
> Cater to the new guy in power.
Yeah, Zuckerberg is bending the knee so he can stay out of negative news and keep his fortune.
> Zuckerberg has already been doing this for decades.
Not really. He didn't bend the knee to Trump as much in the first term, and Trump remembered that: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-el...
Yeah, Zuckerberg is bending the knee so he can stay out of negative news and keep his fortune.
> Zuckerberg has already been doing this for decades.
Not really. He didn't bend the knee to Trump as much in the first term, and Trump remembered that: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-el...
He is very well known for bending for Xi though
I've seen it suggested that Zuckerberg was forced into kicking against Trump 1.0 because of activist employees and a difficult recruitment market. After the layoffs and the reduced competition for decent tech professionals, he can return to the more neutral position he favors.
It’s already well documented that he “bent the knee” to Biden, so you can argue about the extent but the pattern is pretty well established.
I think that question is going to be very easy to answer.
What is political about facts?
Have seen people who disagree over issues like climate change or the Israel/Palestine conflict? The disagreements are not just over policy, but over what is even real.
Or, if you have 15 minutes, this video clip examines how major media outlets cover (or do not cover) two different atrocities: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI
Or, if you have 15 minutes, this video clip examines how major media outlets cover (or do not cover) two different atrocities: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI
Everything is political.
Now what's factual about politics?
Now what's factual about politics?
I realize this discussion will probably go down the political rabbit hole, but I think what's more interesting is that we really have entered a world in the past 10-15 years where there is no longer a broad, societally-wide accepted definition of facts. This is a major change for humanity, one I'm not quite sure how we'll cope with.
Daniel Patrick Moynahan once famously said "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." I'm not sure that's the case anymore.
Daniel Patrick Moynahan once famously said "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." I'm not sure that's the case anymore.
> where there is no longer a broad, societally-wide accepted definition of facts.
I am not sure it is actually difference.
In the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, there was so much discussion in the media about how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and those saying it was made up were marginalized. In the end those doubters were right.
I think in Vietnam, there was similar misleading statements about cause belli e.g. Gulf of Tonkin Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident I think that there is often disagreement on facts.
I think with Wikipedia existing, we are actually in the gold age of grounded truth.
There is always a sizable segment of the population who doesn't really care for truth though and they will just align with their side and be angry. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum. In the past this was pushed via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism and is still pushed via similar outlets today.
I am not sure it is actually difference.
In the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, there was so much discussion in the media about how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and those saying it was made up were marginalized. In the end those doubters were right.
I think in Vietnam, there was similar misleading statements about cause belli e.g. Gulf of Tonkin Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident I think that there is often disagreement on facts.
I think with Wikipedia existing, we are actually in the gold age of grounded truth.
There is always a sizable segment of the population who doesn't really care for truth though and they will just align with their side and be angry. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum. In the past this was pushed via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism and is still pushed via similar outlets today.
To your points, I agree, but that's why I phrased it as "societally-wide accepted definition of facts". There has always been propaganda and hard pressure against those who went against the status quo.
What I think is different this time is the process on coming to a "generally accepted conclusion". Take the Iraq WMD issue. At the time, the status quo was that Iraq had WMDs, even if there were plenty of people arguing against that - those people may have been "marginalized" as you put it (though not sure I agree - I was one of those people, and while I clearly the tide was against my viewpoint, I still felt we were having a debate over facts), but they were still arguing that there was little evidence for WMDs. But when the facts were cleared up, there was broad agreement "OK, the evidence is now clear, this is what happened".
My point is now that even when the clear picture does finally emerge, you have plenty of people still just willing to repeat the falsehood in the belief that "if you repeat it enough, it becomes 'true' enough to enough people." That's what feels different to me, at least in my lifetime.
What I think is different this time is the process on coming to a "generally accepted conclusion". Take the Iraq WMD issue. At the time, the status quo was that Iraq had WMDs, even if there were plenty of people arguing against that - those people may have been "marginalized" as you put it (though not sure I agree - I was one of those people, and while I clearly the tide was against my viewpoint, I still felt we were having a debate over facts), but they were still arguing that there was little evidence for WMDs. But when the facts were cleared up, there was broad agreement "OK, the evidence is now clear, this is what happened".
My point is now that even when the clear picture does finally emerge, you have plenty of people still just willing to repeat the falsehood in the belief that "if you repeat it enough, it becomes 'true' enough to enough people." That's what feels different to me, at least in my lifetime.
> My point is now that even when the clear picture does finally emerge, you have plenty of people still just willing to repeat the falsehood in the belief that "if you repeat it enough, it becomes 'true' enough to enough people." That's what feels different to me, at least in my lifetime.
I understand the structure of your argument but I am not sure I can relate it to things that are happening. Can you give concrete examples?
I understand the structure of your argument but I am not sure I can relate it to things that are happening. Can you give concrete examples?
Yes: people consistently repeat that inmigrants are (criminals ((almost) exclusively)) despite never showing any statistics. I have seen people keep a printed list of inmigrant crimes (one of them, an Uber driver).
This happens in two countries, that I know. One of them is the US, the other is Costa Rica. I expect it to happen in all countries with important xenophobic populations.
This happens in two countries, that I know. One of them is the US, the other is Costa Rica. I expect it to happen in all countries with important xenophobic populations.
Well, I know this is going down the political rabbit hole, but look at the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in the US. The evidence that Biden won and Trump lost is undeniable, at least if you use the definition of "the outcome is undeniable considering the standards of any previous presidential election in the US".
But still you have large swaths of the American populace (including, notably, the president elect) saying that no, Trump won the 2020 election. At this point, though, I don't even really see them putting forth any argument based on actual evidence that Trump won in 2020. It's just repeating the same platitudes of "it was stolen, the politicians are corrupt, ..." etc. etc. But it's like many people just accept now that this is an acceptable way to argue things, "if you repeat it enough, you get to have your 'alternative' facts" - like, they don't even really care that much that they don't have actual evidence to back up their position. That is the part that feels relatively new to me.
But still you have large swaths of the American populace (including, notably, the president elect) saying that no, Trump won the 2020 election. At this point, though, I don't even really see them putting forth any argument based on actual evidence that Trump won in 2020. It's just repeating the same platitudes of "it was stolen, the politicians are corrupt, ..." etc. etc. But it's like many people just accept now that this is an acceptable way to argue things, "if you repeat it enough, you get to have your 'alternative' facts" - like, they don't even really care that much that they don't have actual evidence to back up their position. That is the part that feels relatively new to me.
> In the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, there was so much discussion in the media about how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
This is my favorite theory of what happened:
Iraq perceived Iran, and internally Shiites and Kurds, as its real and threatening enemies. USA was perceived as being far away and weak. To keep their real enemies scared, Iraqis kept up the illusion of having a solid WMD program. Iraqis would hint at their WMDs when communicating with their neighbors.
From the point of Western intelligence, the intelligence picked up Iraqis talking about their WMDs when Iraqis didn't know being listened to, and when Western intelligence assumed that Iraqis had no reason to lie. While there was no physical evidence of the WMDs, this was perceived as a rather reliable intelligence. Why would Iraqis talk about their WMDs in secret, if they didn't even have any?
"Failing to understand the Iraqi leader’s mindset and the context of his decisions, the intelligence community assumed that Iraq’s ongoing denial and deception operations regarding his alleged WMD programs, despite periods of genuine cooperation were ipso facto confirmation that Iraq was hiding WMD caches and programs."
"It appears that the intelligence community never seriously considered the possibility that Baghdad was conducting its denial and deception operations to hide weakness."
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Ch...
This is my favorite theory of what happened:
Iraq perceived Iran, and internally Shiites and Kurds, as its real and threatening enemies. USA was perceived as being far away and weak. To keep their real enemies scared, Iraqis kept up the illusion of having a solid WMD program. Iraqis would hint at their WMDs when communicating with their neighbors.
From the point of Western intelligence, the intelligence picked up Iraqis talking about their WMDs when Iraqis didn't know being listened to, and when Western intelligence assumed that Iraqis had no reason to lie. While there was no physical evidence of the WMDs, this was perceived as a rather reliable intelligence. Why would Iraqis talk about their WMDs in secret, if they didn't even have any?
"Failing to understand the Iraqi leader’s mindset and the context of his decisions, the intelligence community assumed that Iraq’s ongoing denial and deception operations regarding his alleged WMD programs, despite periods of genuine cooperation were ipso facto confirmation that Iraq was hiding WMD caches and programs."
"It appears that the intelligence community never seriously considered the possibility that Baghdad was conducting its denial and deception operations to hide weakness."
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Ch...
The Iraq War was pushed by a group calling themselves neoconservatives. They were itching for a war regardless of the WMDs.
Its genesis was at least the mid 1990s per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
And then this group got more power under Bush's term and 9/11 happened and they responded by pushing for the Iraq war and got it:
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2003/03/origins-of-re...
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iraq/what-neocons-got-wrong
The WMDs were a convenient cause belli for the masses, but it was not the motivator for the war. This is why no matter how much doubt was created about the WMDs before the war, and there was tons and tons, there was no stopping it.
Its genesis was at least the mid 1990s per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
And then this group got more power under Bush's term and 9/11 happened and they responded by pushing for the Iraq war and got it:
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2003/03/origins-of-re...
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iraq/what-neocons-got-wrong
The WMDs were a convenient cause belli for the masses, but it was not the motivator for the war. This is why no matter how much doubt was created about the WMDs before the war, and there was tons and tons, there was no stopping it.
>cause belli
At the risk of being that guy, the term you're looking for is casus belli: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casus%20belli
You've misspelled it at least twice so far, otherwise I wouldn't be bothering you about it.
At the risk of being that guy, the term you're looking for is casus belli: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casus%20belli
You've misspelled it at least twice so far, otherwise I wouldn't be bothering you about it.
Thanks. I will try to do better. Another issue is that if I type it correctly it gets autocorrected to “cause hello”. So I have to go back and correct it every time.
Live on the wild side. Turn off the autocorrect.
I couldn't agree more. Truth is, the advances in technology have made it easier for the truth to be revealed. Imagine if the recent events in the last ten or so years were not caught on smartphones and other devices. I feel as if the narrative they would have attempted to sell us would be quite different. This is apparent so many times in recent history as the news spins one story, and someone recording with a phone clearly shows another.
But how does this go against the trend of less trust in facts? Surely it should contradict it? Actually, I think very recent technologies are about to: generative AI is going to make it much, much more difficult to prove anything as a fact.
Wikipedia is an improvement, but its still below the standards and methods that are accessible to humans. If you are an expert, you will hate the Wikipedia articles about your field and still be helpless because the garbage in there is referencing some guy who wrote a badly-researched book in 2001.
> If you are an expert, you will hate the Wikipedia articles about your field
I haven't noticed that. Generally I find it decent.
I haven't noticed that. Generally I find it decent.
On the flip side, Wikipedia is available to a vast majority of the planet's population. We've traded optimum veracity for the privileged few, for 'good enough' for the masses.
I disagree that availability is the issue - you can download the primary sources from the Internet as PDF, even from China or 3rd world countries. It is that enough people don't care about "correctness" and take the best available hearsay as fact.
I don't think we've seen anything like the all out denial of the result of the 2020 election before, though. No matter who won or lost in prior elections, there was an acceptance of what the outcome was. Now you can't even get elected officials to answer what should be a simple yes or no question despite Biden being in office for four years. Sure part of it might just be people who don't care for truth, but the sheer scale of the denial feels like a big break from the past.
> In the end those doubters were right.
I think that helps demonstrate the parent's point. I think it is very much established fact now that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Can we say the same thing about anything that has happened since, certainly in the last 5-10 years? There have always been some dissenters, a small band of conspiracy theorists that would doubt even something as fundamentally true as a non-flat Earth. But now the group is much more sizable.
Edit: since writing this comment, I see that hn_throwaway_99 posted a reply of their own which pretty much matches what I said.
I think that helps demonstrate the parent's point. I think it is very much established fact now that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Can we say the same thing about anything that has happened since, certainly in the last 5-10 years? There have always been some dissenters, a small band of conspiracy theorists that would doubt even something as fundamentally true as a non-flat Earth. But now the group is much more sizable.
Edit: since writing this comment, I see that hn_throwaway_99 posted a reply of their own which pretty much matches what I said.
I’m wondering if it’s because so many people seem to be living more than 50% of their lives online. Facts seem less important in the virtual world.
Go play with some live electrical wiring and see how quickly facts about electricity become important.
Go play with some live electrical wiring and see how quickly facts about electricity become important.
I think a significant problem is that people are confusing facts with truths.
There is only ever one fact, which is immutable as far as the world is concerned. Our ability to perceive facts can change as our ability to do so changes/improves, but the facts themselves will never change. Getting electrocuted is one such very obvious example.
Truths, however, are as numerous as there are people and can even change on a whim. Someone could get electrocuted and that's a fact, but whether he agrees is a different question and his answer is his truth regardless of the fact.
"Fact"-checkers thus are about truth-checking and specifically programming certain truths upon the commons. A Ministry of Truth. The NPC meme isn't far from the mark.
Truths are not facts and facts are not truths. Forcing people to believe, speak, and act in certain ways violates the very basics of human rights.
One of the costs of a free society is that everyone has a right to their own opinion, their own truth. Personally, I believe that cost is more than worth the many benefits of a free society; but that's just my truth and you probably have a different idea.
There is only ever one fact, which is immutable as far as the world is concerned. Our ability to perceive facts can change as our ability to do so changes/improves, but the facts themselves will never change. Getting electrocuted is one such very obvious example.
Truths, however, are as numerous as there are people and can even change on a whim. Someone could get electrocuted and that's a fact, but whether he agrees is a different question and his answer is his truth regardless of the fact.
"Fact"-checkers thus are about truth-checking and specifically programming certain truths upon the commons. A Ministry of Truth. The NPC meme isn't far from the mark.
Truths are not facts and facts are not truths. Forcing people to believe, speak, and act in certain ways violates the very basics of human rights.
One of the costs of a free society is that everyone has a right to their own opinion, their own truth. Personally, I believe that cost is more than worth the many benefits of a free society; but that's just my truth and you probably have a different idea.
Reading your comment, could we use another word here, beliefs?
If so then I'm not really against people having their own beliefs, except beliefs aren't facts and they can become extremely harmful, especially at scale, even to those holding onto the beliefs.
I guess you've heard about the Jonestown massacre, for example?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
If so then I'm not really against people having their own beliefs, except beliefs aren't facts and they can become extremely harmful, especially at scale, even to those holding onto the beliefs.
I guess you've heard about the Jonestown massacre, for example?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
>Reading your comment, could we use another word here, beliefs?
Doesn't really matter, ultimately certain people want to enforce the notion that there is One True Truth/Belief/Opinion/Narrative/"Fact" and any heretics must be burned at the stake.
I like and appreciate a free society, so I am decisively against such notions.
Doesn't really matter, ultimately certain people want to enforce the notion that there is One True Truth/Belief/Opinion/Narrative/"Fact" and any heretics must be burned at the stake.
I like and appreciate a free society, so I am decisively against such notions.
Similarly, online discourse as much broader.
When online, im the world's foremost expert on fusion reactors, general relativity, geopolitics, genetics, and culture. I can dig up scholarly articles to back my position. If someone disagrees with me, the topic is deep and complex enough that I can't be decisively proven wrong.
The nature of the modern era is that everybody has a opinion about even the most niche topic. They get away with this because the stakes are non-existent and people have no real skin in the game. This habitual behavior has become the norm.
When online, im the world's foremost expert on fusion reactors, general relativity, geopolitics, genetics, and culture. I can dig up scholarly articles to back my position. If someone disagrees with me, the topic is deep and complex enough that I can't be decisively proven wrong.
The nature of the modern era is that everybody has a opinion about even the most niche topic. They get away with this because the stakes are non-existent and people have no real skin in the game. This habitual behavior has become the norm.
Sam Harris has a great summary of this: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/395...
It's so true in my opinion "doing research" is has often become, "finding a view that agrees with my world view" and to add to that, using that view to reinforce my beliefs.
It's really diabolical.
It's so true in my opinion "doing research" is has often become, "finding a view that agrees with my world view" and to add to that, using that view to reinforce my beliefs.
It's really diabolical.
That's a great point -- in addition, some facts are less consequential than others. For example, if I go around believing that the Earth is five-thousand years old, it may not affect me negatively at all (unless I'm a geologist or archeologist), in contrast to your electrical wiring fact that would have immediate effect.
> I’m wondering if it’s because the majority of people seem to be living more than 50% of their lives online. Facts seem less important in the virtual world.
Or when you're online, it's much easier to assemble a hyper conformist bubble (which cultivates a sense of self righteousness) and be rude to people you disagree with (because they're often just an abstraction you'll never interact with again, and also the enemy of your bubble). Then once developed, the habits formed in those spaces can bleed into interactions that aren't so conformist or anonymous.
Or when you're online, it's much easier to assemble a hyper conformist bubble (which cultivates a sense of self righteousness) and be rude to people you disagree with (because they're often just an abstraction you'll never interact with again, and also the enemy of your bubble). Then once developed, the habits formed in those spaces can bleed into interactions that aren't so conformist or anonymous.
I would have to disagree a little. I think what were seeing is the true nature of some of these issues where you have a case where both sides are right and wrong at the same time and it really just depends on your perspective.
Take a conflict, any conflict. In most cases you can go to both sides and ask why they are fighting the other side and they will give you a coherent response. In some cases it's easy to judge right and wrong but in other cases it becomes murkier. This applies not just to war but to all social conflicts and issues like healthcare, abortion, immigration, so on and so forth.
Now what has happened previously is because media was essentially a monopoly of a few, outlets would take what happened and re-package that into something that typically stood in line with our western values, and that's how roughly everyone was on the same page, we were just being fed roughly the same story we all believed was happening and it was very hard to prove otherwise what happened.
Fast forward to now and that monopoly is long gone. Now we get the full unfiltered picture from independent media sources and increasingly just social media from ordinary people on the ground. The full idea doesn't have a concept of right and wrong, both sides of are right and both sides are wrong, just depends on your own personal worldview. This results in people drifting one way or the other depending on their personal beliefs and is a complete fragmentation compared to what we had before.
Take a conflict, any conflict. In most cases you can go to both sides and ask why they are fighting the other side and they will give you a coherent response. In some cases it's easy to judge right and wrong but in other cases it becomes murkier. This applies not just to war but to all social conflicts and issues like healthcare, abortion, immigration, so on and so forth.
Now what has happened previously is because media was essentially a monopoly of a few, outlets would take what happened and re-package that into something that typically stood in line with our western values, and that's how roughly everyone was on the same page, we were just being fed roughly the same story we all believed was happening and it was very hard to prove otherwise what happened.
Fast forward to now and that monopoly is long gone. Now we get the full unfiltered picture from independent media sources and increasingly just social media from ordinary people on the ground. The full idea doesn't have a concept of right and wrong, both sides of are right and both sides are wrong, just depends on your own personal worldview. This results in people drifting one way or the other depending on their personal beliefs and is a complete fragmentation compared to what we had before.
Naomi Klein recently said "conspiracy theorists ‘get the facts wrong but often get the feelings right’" and this is how I think a lot of way too online people are. They've correctly judged that the mainstream news is biased or flat out manufacturing consent such as the lead up to the Iraq war. However instead of seeking out actual truth or just better sources of news in response to this, they seek out what makes them feel good and correct in their assumptions. Honestly its the same behavior you see in older people that are "set in their ways" - new evidence and objective truth be damned.
> They've correctly judged that the mainstream news is biased or flat out manufacturing consent such as the lead up to the Iraq war
It's telling that nearly every time the mainstream media is criticized it's the same handful of incidents that are cited.
It's telling that nearly every time the mainstream media is criticized it's the same handful of incidents that are cited.
„We have always been at war with Oceania“.
Facts and their representation has been changed by governments since time immemorial. The internet probably made us much better in sporting it so we became a bit paranoid.
Facts and their representation has been changed by governments since time immemorial. The internet probably made us much better in sporting it so we became a bit paranoid.
> This is a major change for humanity, one I'm not quite sure how we'll cope with.
I don't know, it seems vastly more likely to me that this is a regression to how things have been for thousands of years before the invention of mass media. Like, once mass media was invented, the "set of facts" could be distributed to everyone, and so it exploded, but now the various factions who want to control the narrative have figured out how to use that mass media to share their "set of facts" in the same way.
I don't know, it seems vastly more likely to me that this is a regression to how things have been for thousands of years before the invention of mass media. Like, once mass media was invented, the "set of facts" could be distributed to everyone, and so it exploded, but now the various factions who want to control the narrative have figured out how to use that mass media to share their "set of facts" in the same way.
> we really have entered a world in the past 10-15 years where there is no longer a broad, societally-wide accepted definition of facts.
Never was :(
Never was :(
It is a catchy phrase for saying that lies are spread by the goverment and the public is willing to pass them as facts.
Truth or fact is one and only, perspectives are many, opinions are personal. Lies are infinite.
Truth or fact is one and only, perspectives are many, opinions are personal. Lies are infinite.
Hasn't that been the case much longer than that? The US for example has had a problem with creationists.
People used to care if they way they talked about politics made them look intelligent, reasonable, and informed. Now many of them speak online where they get warped signals of approval, and these signals elicit behavior that they would never engage in if they still depended on the good opinion of their friends, neighbors, family, and coworkers.
This is liberating and positive in so many dimensions of personal expression, but in politics, the effects are turning out to be the opposite. Some become entirely dependent on these online signals of approval, and they let themselves be guided by a warped perception of political effectiveness, where effectiveness might mean using disinformation to motivate people on "their" side (which I guess actually is politically effective) or it might mean winning meaningless games of online dunking. People who invest time and energy in online political discourse see themselves as heroes, above the judgment of those who don't engage, and see their online activity as brave and dangerous, even though in reality, both sides always go home the winner in their own eyes, and there are no consequences except degraded mental habits all around.
It has long been dogma on the far left and far right that the concepts of civility, reasonable debate, and legitimate political process are only cloaks for the brutal exercise of power, and the sooner cast aside the better. If you pay any attention to the quality of how we do politics, you have allowed your liberal oppressors to trick and distract you. Thirty years ago, I heard it from left-wing professors at university and from far-right gun nuts promoting race war in chat rooms. Now it seems a lot closer to the mainstream, on one side in rhetoric and on both sides in practice.
This is liberating and positive in so many dimensions of personal expression, but in politics, the effects are turning out to be the opposite. Some become entirely dependent on these online signals of approval, and they let themselves be guided by a warped perception of political effectiveness, where effectiveness might mean using disinformation to motivate people on "their" side (which I guess actually is politically effective) or it might mean winning meaningless games of online dunking. People who invest time and energy in online political discourse see themselves as heroes, above the judgment of those who don't engage, and see their online activity as brave and dangerous, even though in reality, both sides always go home the winner in their own eyes, and there are no consequences except degraded mental habits all around.
It has long been dogma on the far left and far right that the concepts of civility, reasonable debate, and legitimate political process are only cloaks for the brutal exercise of power, and the sooner cast aside the better. If you pay any attention to the quality of how we do politics, you have allowed your liberal oppressors to trick and distract you. Thirty years ago, I heard it from left-wing professors at university and from far-right gun nuts promoting race war in chat rooms. Now it seems a lot closer to the mainstream, on one side in rhetoric and on both sides in practice.
There has never been one.
At risk of sounding argumentative, another way of looking at this I think is that the community of people in the US who have known only a facts-first approach to reality are now discovering the size of the community of people whose worldview is effectively tribal. I was raised in a very rural community and many of my most vivid memories are of members of my extended family recounting stories which I now know are urban legends, joking knowingly with one another about how so called experts in far-off cities were confused, and cautionary tales about the horrible things that members of other races would do to you. You can imagine how confusing it was then to go off to college and then to see the world and meet people and discover how much of the mythology I'd absorbed was no more than that.
The bulk of the people I've described had very little interaction with the world outside the area where they lived, and the only way they were likely to interact with someone from the facts-first community was via a letter to the editor of some magazine (which might not be published), or if an outsider came to visit, in which case politeness might avoid a confrontation.
Social media introduced these two groups to each other, each group thinks the other is comprised of fools and neither is shy about saying so, and here we are. In my own family, I have yet to see a case in which a member of the tribal knowledge community was moved by an argument from a member of the facts-first community; their belief structure seems to ossify at around pubescence and compromising on it in any way would risk a loss of status in that community.
I take some comfort in believing that we have not been plopped into a post-truth reality, but rather that providing the internet to rural tribal communities was rather like switching on a light and discovering what things had been hiding before our eyes in the dark. I think its also a generational issue because the difference between my old relatives and their offspring my childrens' age is nearly as stark as the difference between the facts-first and tribal-knowledge communities on the whole. While it sucks that this post-truth era will be with us for a while I'm hopeful that the same internet access that led to this schism will also allow at least some of the kids who grew up like I did to be skeptical about tribal knowledge from a younger age. However you might also argue that now the segment of the entire population who are susceptible to misinformation will be poisoned in the same way I was.
Anyhow thanks for your comment; reading it made me stop to think about something that had been bothering me a great deal lately and it was helpful writing this response.
The bulk of the people I've described had very little interaction with the world outside the area where they lived, and the only way they were likely to interact with someone from the facts-first community was via a letter to the editor of some magazine (which might not be published), or if an outsider came to visit, in which case politeness might avoid a confrontation.
Social media introduced these two groups to each other, each group thinks the other is comprised of fools and neither is shy about saying so, and here we are. In my own family, I have yet to see a case in which a member of the tribal knowledge community was moved by an argument from a member of the facts-first community; their belief structure seems to ossify at around pubescence and compromising on it in any way would risk a loss of status in that community.
I take some comfort in believing that we have not been plopped into a post-truth reality, but rather that providing the internet to rural tribal communities was rather like switching on a light and discovering what things had been hiding before our eyes in the dark. I think its also a generational issue because the difference between my old relatives and their offspring my childrens' age is nearly as stark as the difference between the facts-first and tribal-knowledge communities on the whole. While it sucks that this post-truth era will be with us for a while I'm hopeful that the same internet access that led to this schism will also allow at least some of the kids who grew up like I did to be skeptical about tribal knowledge from a younger age. However you might also argue that now the segment of the entire population who are susceptible to misinformation will be poisoned in the same way I was.
Anyhow thanks for your comment; reading it made me stop to think about something that had been bothering me a great deal lately and it was helpful writing this response.
[deleted]
[deleted]
dustedcodes(2)
RandomTisk(1)
Translation: Oh shi! Billionaires opinions don’t matter like they used to!
Fact-checking happens when one side makes shit up and rhe other side actually looks it up.
Fact-checking happens when one side makes shit up and rhe other side actually looks it up.
They really will do ANYTHING to save money, eh?
In this case, they get the benefit of saving money AND increasing the rise of misinformation and fascism. It's a double bonus for Zuck and UFC president/Meta Board member/Trump booster. https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-zuckerberg-board-me...
Once comparatively nothing happened after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Zuck realized he has a better chance of continuing to reign if he sides with the right-wing.
Once comparatively nothing happened after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Zuck realized he has a better chance of continuing to reign if he sides with the right-wing.
Fact Checker is merely a politically correct name for a Ministry of Truth, and there are as many truths as there are people with opinions. I wholeheartedly agree and support any and all movements and actions removing them; people should critically think for themselves instead of begging someone to program them.
Incidentally: A "fact" is an immutable facet of the world itself, whether we can even acknowledge it properly or not. Facts don't need checkers.
Incidentally: A "fact" is an immutable facet of the world itself, whether we can even acknowledge it properly or not. Facts don't need checkers.
> Incidentally: A "fact" is an immutable facet of the world itself, whether we can even acknowledge it properly or not. Facts don't need checkers.
The term "fact checker" does not mean someone who checks that facts are true. It means someone who checks that what someone claims is a fact is in fact a fact.
The term "fact checker" does not mean someone who checks that facts are true. It means someone who checks that what someone claims is a fact is in fact a fact.
A fact can be verified. Someone with the necessary knowledge to verify a fact is a fact checker in that particular domain of facts. They are not infallible though, let alone unbiased; even though the facts themselves are immutable and, well, factual.
That said I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on critical thought. It should be everyone's duty to verify facts for themselves but... consider how many people are functionally illiterate in the world. They wouldn't be able to verify even simple facts, because they lack the mental framework to do so (i.e. reading comprehension). And also consider how much of a burden it is to individually verify every single claim that is made, and compare it to how easy it is to make wild claims. It would be impossible to navigate the modern world without a group of dedicated fact checkers that you trust. You can't be an expert on everything -- and if you think you are, that means precisely that you are NOT.
That said I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on critical thought. It should be everyone's duty to verify facts for themselves but... consider how many people are functionally illiterate in the world. They wouldn't be able to verify even simple facts, because they lack the mental framework to do so (i.e. reading comprehension). And also consider how much of a burden it is to individually verify every single claim that is made, and compare it to how easy it is to make wild claims. It would be impossible to navigate the modern world without a group of dedicated fact checkers that you trust. You can't be an expert on everything -- and if you think you are, that means precisely that you are NOT.
A fact can be verified. They don’t verify facts for censorship though. They act netural that suddenly pulls the “Cooperates can do whatever they want” card when things don’t align with their interests.
Sadly, everyone is having to relearn from first principles why diversity is often not a strength. Social cohesion has value, and that value often eclipses an ideological need for diversity (read: we are all the same or equal).
Social cohesion is probably stronger influenced by wealth disparity than diversity.
The top 10% of the us population own more than 60% of the countries wealth.
In the US about a third of this disparity is due to inheritance.
https://academic.oup.com/oep/article/74/3/643/6414507
The top 10% of the us population own more than 60% of the countries wealth.
In the US about a third of this disparity is due to inheritance.
https://academic.oup.com/oep/article/74/3/643/6414507
> Social cohesion is probably stronger influenced by wealth disparity than diversity.
That's not what I've seen, anecdotally. In school, university, and work places, the friend groups I've observed and been a part of have primarily aligned around racial groups.
That's not what I've seen, anecdotally. In school, university, and work places, the friend groups I've observed and been a part of have primarily aligned around racial groups.
American schools, unis and workplaces probably already select for equal socio economic status to a degree.
Just some food for thought: How is the ratio of blue collar / white collar kids in your peer group? How close are you / were you in percentile distance?
No one caress for race in my environment, but even as a student somehow everybody I hang out with had the same amount of money.
Just some food for thought: How is the ratio of blue collar / white collar kids in your peer group? How close are you / were you in percentile distance?
No one caress for race in my environment, but even as a student somehow everybody I hang out with had the same amount of money.
I think a more simple solution is to expose every person to let's say Matt Walsh, Tim Pool or Charlie Kirks explanation/opinion as well as Don Lemon, Destiny and Cenk Uyger and see where they land.
I'm curious, what are HN's opinions around community notes on X/Twitter? I find them to be pretty good (and sometimes quite funny) but I wonder what others think.