When I first heard about this plan to "face check" articles on Facebook, I was actually floored because it's just such an obviously bad idea. There is always going to be a point where reasonable people disagree about what is correct and what isn't or what should be fact-checked and what shouldn't.
And you're not even dealing with reasonable people.
Even if you limit it to the most egregious cases that just shifts the problem. What's egregious and what isn't?
I actually believe it was well-intentioned. Just... completely misguided. You know what they say: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Second thought: it's weird to me how many conservatives and conspiracy theorists (it's interesting that there's so much crossover between these two groups) are so keen to dismantle Section 230 when they benefit the most. In an effort for platforms to remain neutral, this nonsense is allowed to exist. If platforms were responsible for this "content", it'd be shut down so fast.
But here's a good thing to keep in mind: from a narcissist an accusation is actually a confession. Trump is a textbook narcissist. Go back and look at his accusations through that filter.
>Even if you limit it to the most egregious cases that just shifts the problem. What's egregious and what isn't?
It implicitly shifts the undertone of everything that isn't fact-checked on the platform from neutral to true. This is not a bug but a feature, as it provides the plausible deniability by blurring the line between "no tag since we can't fact-check everything, duh" and "no tag because we tacitly agree with the narrative presented here even if it is untrue".
I think it can be implemented well: there will always be a point where reasonable people agree about what is correct.
That point is obviously very, very conservative (lower case 'c'). Reasonable people can all agree that Covid is a thing that exists, for example.
I don't mind Facebook fact-checking against flat-earthers, "it's just a flu bro", or "Bill Gates put 5g microchips in vaccines". Reasonable people from any place would agree those are counter-factual.
But I tend to get banned from subreddits as an anti-vaxxer because, for example, I say my first 2 shots were Pfizer and I refuse to get Moderna for my third one (Moderna is the only one my government currently permits my age group to get). There are facts for and against this position for reasonable people to weigh. It's still often a ban on social-media for spreading anti-vax misinformation though.
There are always casualties to policies of "fact checking". You have witnessed yourself being one. I think it would have been nice to have some better policy or conversation in place for what happens when you become the one erroneously fact-checked, because instead what's happening now is it just happens in the shadows and by the time it happens to you it's too late and you're stuck with this system that actually just works counter-intuitively to the issues that are the most important to you.
It's sort of like the slow eroding of freedoms and transition to fascism that people seem to be fine with because "protect us against COVID" which we're all fine with it until that policy is flipped on them and happens to impact them.
> It's sort of like the slow eroding of freedoms and transition to fascism that people seem to be fine with because "protect us against COVID"
Oh, come the heck on. I don't know how a reasonable person should be expected to take this seriously. We've been forcing people to vaccinate for a good long time now and I don't think I'm living in a fascist dystopia. Correct me if I'm wrong! Should I buy some jackboots so I can fit into my new reality?
And you're not even dealing with reasonable people.
Even if you limit it to the most egregious cases that just shifts the problem. What's egregious and what isn't?
I actually believe it was well-intentioned. Just... completely misguided. You know what they say: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Second thought: it's weird to me how many conservatives and conspiracy theorists (it's interesting that there's so much crossover between these two groups) are so keen to dismantle Section 230 when they benefit the most. In an effort for platforms to remain neutral, this nonsense is allowed to exist. If platforms were responsible for this "content", it'd be shut down so fast.
But here's a good thing to keep in mind: from a narcissist an accusation is actually a confession. Trump is a textbook narcissist. Go back and look at his accusations through that filter.