It can be simultaneously true that FB moving away from fact checkers is overall objectively positive for free speech AND Zuckerberg's political/profit motivations cause him to kowtow to Trump.
That's true. We can also take the position that we're glad he did the right thing, and the specific motivations don't matter much. Of course that begs the question of what happens if the Democrat Left re-takes the White House in 2026.
Many times challenging ideas on FB is seen as "punching down", depending on the demographics of the person posting a meme, etc. that needs challenging in pursuit of the truth, as well as the person making the challenge. FB Community Notes will improve that dynamic.
Nothing has changed the fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The fact that the "truth arbiters" made some doozy, laughable decisions with serious real-world consequences has really hurt their cause.
The big question ignored in this piece is whether Meta's move will be compliant with the EU's DSA. If the censorious busybodies in Brussels disagree, then Meta is still in a world of trouble (unless it shuts down in the EU or is willing to pay huge fines).
I am a full-throated advocate for free speech and have appreciated so much of Greg’s work over the years. However, I feel like this post is (I say this respectfully) uncharacteristically naive. Community notes is better than fact checkers, but the folks the Radically Eternal Idea are very intelligent. Surely you see how supporters of the incoming administration are weaponizing “free speech” for their own political purposes.
As for the difference — the article you sent me mostly highlights propaganda and manufactured consent from the government, where I believe Trump’s administration is poising themselves to actively suppress and punish voices who speak out against them. There’s a marked difference! Where, in the name of “protecting free speech”, real censorship and shutdown of dissidence occurs.
I have mixed feelings about it - I'm not a free speech absolutist, and the comments about 2 in 10 content removals being wrong misses the point that 8 in 10 were successfully removed. Also, I don't see crowdsourcing and fact checking as an either-or proposition. I think Community Notes was a great move, but not sure the model fits Facebook (Instagram and Threads fit better). More thoughts on that here:
I'd be interested to hear what you think about the idea of The Canonical Debate: fully transparent, fully crowdsourced, de-duped, de-biased, censorship-free repository for claims of fact. It doesn't exist (yet), but assuming it did, it seems to me it would be the necessary bridge between "absolute free speech" and "constructive discourse":
It can be simultaneously true that FB moving away from fact checkers is overall objectively positive for free speech AND Zuckerberg's political/profit motivations cause him to kowtow to Trump.
That's true. We can also take the position that we're glad he did the right thing, and the specific motivations don't matter much. Of course that begs the question of what happens if the Democrat Left re-takes the White House in 2026.
Many times challenging ideas on FB is seen as "punching down", depending on the demographics of the person posting a meme, etc. that needs challenging in pursuit of the truth, as well as the person making the challenge. FB Community Notes will improve that dynamic.
Nothing has changed the fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The fact that the "truth arbiters" made some doozy, laughable decisions with serious real-world consequences has really hurt their cause.
The big question ignored in this piece is whether Meta's move will be compliant with the EU's DSA. If the censorious busybodies in Brussels disagree, then Meta is still in a world of trouble (unless it shuts down in the EU or is willing to pay huge fines).
Facebook’s hermetically sealed nature is likely something that allowed so much bad info to spread there for so long. This is a great idea, for sure.
Seems like fact-checking is best left to free markets rather than central planners too.
I am a full-throated advocate for free speech and have appreciated so much of Greg’s work over the years. However, I feel like this post is (I say this respectfully) uncharacteristically naive. Community notes is better than fact checkers, but the folks the Radically Eternal Idea are very intelligent. Surely you see how supporters of the incoming administration are weaponizing “free speech” for their own political purposes.
Sure. But how is this different than what is happening now? Or 10 years ago? Or a century ago?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-woodrow-wilsons-propaganda-machine-changed-american-journalism-180963082/
This was an enjoyable read, thank you!
As for the difference — the article you sent me mostly highlights propaganda and manufactured consent from the government, where I believe Trump’s administration is poising themselves to actively suppress and punish voices who speak out against them. There’s a marked difference! Where, in the name of “protecting free speech”, real censorship and shutdown of dissidence occurs.
I have mixed feelings about it - I'm not a free speech absolutist, and the comments about 2 in 10 content removals being wrong misses the point that 8 in 10 were successfully removed. Also, I don't see crowdsourcing and fact checking as an either-or proposition. I think Community Notes was a great move, but not sure the model fits Facebook (Instagram and Threads fit better). More thoughts on that here:
https://medium.com/@bigokro/meta-dumps-fact-checking-is-that-good-or-bad-e40848ea9940
I'd be interested to hear what you think about the idea of The Canonical Debate: fully transparent, fully crowdsourced, de-duped, de-biased, censorship-free repository for claims of fact. It doesn't exist (yet), but assuming it did, it seems to me it would be the necessary bridge between "absolute free speech" and "constructive discourse":
https://github.com/canonical-debate-lab/paper/blob/master/README.mediawiki
And he will change them right back when the Blues the majority.