"I remain a big believer in crowdsourced fact-checking - but as one spoke in a real trust and safety program" writes Alex Mahadevan. But the plan that's being rolled out by Meta won't succeed. Why? For the 'fact checks' to appear on posts "requires agreement from 'a range of perspectives.' In a hyperpolarized world, it's nearly impossible to get two sides to agree on anything." Also, "users are very bad at flagging posts that are actually fact-checkable - largely tagging opinions or predictions." Meta's plan mirrors that in use on Twitter. "Take one look at your X feed today. Is it more factual than it was three years ago?" Q.E.D., in my view. See also the Register, the Guardian, Nieman Lab.
Today: 35 Total: 305 [Direct link] [Share]
