> Because Facebook forwards posts that are marked as false to third-party fact-checkers, she said it was important to build systems to assess whether the posts were likely to be false to make efficient use of fact-checkers’ time.
This seems like a "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" kind of thing. On one hand, I understand not wanting to forward every single story when a troll is mass-reporting, on the other hand though, this seems like a very 1984 approach that like all algorithms is horrendously naive.
Any closed group is likely to have a skewed sense of reality. On one hand, third party fact checkers are hopefully true to their title, but on the other hand, they could just be adding their own bias to the decisions with no oversight in a way that affects users going forward.
Add in no ability to appeal and no visibility into the system, and you have a closed system ripe for abuse.
Good job Facebook, you have learned nothing.
This seems like a "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" kind of thing. On one hand, I understand not wanting to forward every single story when a troll is mass-reporting, on the other hand though, this seems like a very 1984 approach that like all algorithms is horrendously naive.
Any closed group is likely to have a skewed sense of reality. On one hand, third party fact checkers are hopefully true to their title, but on the other hand, they could just be adding their own bias to the decisions with no oversight in a way that affects users going forward.
Add in no ability to appeal and no visibility into the system, and you have a closed system ripe for abuse.
Good job Facebook, you have learned nothing.