1) "Fact checkers" have no credentials, they're anonymous, they are not transparent or accountable, they have unilateral censorship power. That is not how science operates.
2) Meta is not interested in science or democracy, they're interested in population control via information control, narrative control and communication control. E.g. they're concerned with losing "trust"; they're not concerned about material damage they have caused e.g. causing people to take a dangerous injection. They too are not transparent or accountable. All of this is not how democracy works.
3) Meta will just pivot to achieving (2) by using fake AI accounts to manipulate discussion and "community notes". Facebook is already rife with fake accounts.
These people have already broken cover in terms of what they want to achieve. Nothing has changed.
Devils advocate: Fact-checkers would say their credentials are accreditation with the IFCN https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/
Also, it's true they don't have censorship power. They have 'sorting' power. the censorship is enacted by the platforms, under pressure of governments, but of course the fact-checker part of the problem is that it falls to them to sort the information into buckets for the purpose of censorship.
For that reason, I'm for ditching fact-checkers but I'd also like to see the algos and government comms/agreements made transparent, because those are the other elements in social media censorship system.
It's really funny. One day after one of Trump's biggest buddies, Dana White, goes on the board of Meta, Zuck changes his tune on censorship. As you say, grab the popcorn !
At present the focus is on censorship but trying to see a bigger picture I see this leading to no internet access allowed without an up-to-date biometric I.D.
Likely to happen here in Australia (I think) in 2026 using the excuse of keeping the kiddies safe. Legislation has already been rushed through our parliament with little debate or time for public input.
The social media ban is due to come in at the end of this year, and yes it probably will require biometric identification. But that's not for the whole internet, that's just for social media. ID for internet use would be a whole new level!
The greatest creators of mis, mal & dis information are literally and actually the State and the rapacious, evil transnational Corporatocracy. The sheer VOLUME OF LIES by the Australian Department Health beggars belief. May they burn in fucking hell, or in the firestorm, if atheist. I purely loathe them. Our Australian Uniparty needs a colonic irrigation, using napalm.
why has it become essential to have expensive fact checkers who take it on themselves to inform all on every detail that may or may not be correct This is supposed to save us from ignorance on any subject but who checks fact checkers to find if they are correct in their assumptions How many levels of this fact checking exists ensuring the illiterate public of their failure to know remarkable scraps of information which can be found by using brains & common sense
To the postmodern "progressive", truth is never absolute, hence the concept of "lived truth".
This is seen in the incorporation of Aboriginal creation myths in all aspects of the national school curriculum taught as fact, in the ability of prepubescent children to be able to decide their own sex, and change it daily if desired.
The same "progressives" are generally the ones fighting tooth and nail for the involvement of "fact" checkers to inform the public of what is truth and what is not.
As someone who is partial to using the phrase 'lived experience' myself, I find it ironic that open discourse is now a concept more associated with conservatism than progressivism.
Including indigenous perspectives as alternative perspectives (not myths as facts) is what open-minded teachers should do, after all, this is Australia, land of Indigenous Aboriginal Australians.
A democracy should foster greater conversations about broader perspectives, rather than narrowing down to one mainstream perspective.
Discussions, conversations, and sharing opinions are what elicit deeper understanding, greater appreciation for diversity and a more harmonious community.
Just like this conversation, being able to share an alternative perspective - such as, I do not believe the Australian Curriculum directs teachers to teach Indigenous Creation stories as facts - is the essence of free speech.
We needed greater discussions within and across our communities, rather than being forced fed ideologies downwards from those on high:
Perhaps the values would greater reflect our citizenry rather than those who shape our leaders.
If Fakebook's "Community Standards" remain in place, how can we expect the censorship industrial process to stop banning verboten topics for mere "Breach of Community Guidelines: Medical Misinformation"?
1) "Fact checkers" have no credentials, they're anonymous, they are not transparent or accountable, they have unilateral censorship power. That is not how science operates.
2) Meta is not interested in science or democracy, they're interested in population control via information control, narrative control and communication control. E.g. they're concerned with losing "trust"; they're not concerned about material damage they have caused e.g. causing people to take a dangerous injection. They too are not transparent or accountable. All of this is not how democracy works.
3) Meta will just pivot to achieving (2) by using fake AI accounts to manipulate discussion and "community notes". Facebook is already rife with fake accounts.
These people have already broken cover in terms of what they want to achieve. Nothing has changed.
Devils advocate: Fact-checkers would say their credentials are accreditation with the IFCN https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/
Also, it's true they don't have censorship power. They have 'sorting' power. the censorship is enacted by the platforms, under pressure of governments, but of course the fact-checker part of the problem is that it falls to them to sort the information into buckets for the purpose of censorship.
For that reason, I'm for ditching fact-checkers but I'd also like to see the algos and government comms/agreements made transparent, because those are the other elements in social media censorship system.
It's really funny. One day after one of Trump's biggest buddies, Dana White, goes on the board of Meta, Zuck changes his tune on censorship. As you say, grab the popcorn !
Yep, out with Nick Clegg, in with Dana White! Hence, Zuck's manosphere era ;)
At present the focus is on censorship but trying to see a bigger picture I see this leading to no internet access allowed without an up-to-date biometric I.D.
Likely to happen here in Australia (I think) in 2026 using the excuse of keeping the kiddies safe. Legislation has already been rushed through our parliament with little debate or time for public input.
The social media ban is due to come in at the end of this year, and yes it probably will require biometric identification. But that's not for the whole internet, that's just for social media. ID for internet use would be a whole new level!
Thanks Rebecca but I suspect this is just the thin end of the wedge, using the ID for social media as a first step.
By the way, no barrriers to all the porno web sites which will continue to be accessible.
Rigorous discussions, not fact-checkers are the democratic solution.
Notice Zuckerberg shifted the fear narrative from the local to those abroad?
We should still be fearful 🙄
What do you mean about shifting the fear narrative Mike?
I basically meant Meta is shifting away from a national threat (antigovernment narratives) to international threats (political meddlers).
In this way, they will try to save face by denouncing previous censorship and appearing patriotic,
Crap point hey 😂
Gotcha
The greatest creators of mis, mal & dis information are literally and actually the State and the rapacious, evil transnational Corporatocracy. The sheer VOLUME OF LIES by the Australian Department Health beggars belief. May they burn in fucking hell, or in the firestorm, if atheist. I purely loathe them. Our Australian Uniparty needs a colonic irrigation, using napalm.
why has it become essential to have expensive fact checkers who take it on themselves to inform all on every detail that may or may not be correct This is supposed to save us from ignorance on any subject but who checks fact checkers to find if they are correct in their assumptions How many levels of this fact checking exists ensuring the illiterate public of their failure to know remarkable scraps of information which can be found by using brains & common sense
Because Trumps election in 2016 made people scared that if you don't tell people how to suck eggs, they'll come to the wrong conclusions.
To the postmodern "progressive", truth is never absolute, hence the concept of "lived truth".
This is seen in the incorporation of Aboriginal creation myths in all aspects of the national school curriculum taught as fact, in the ability of prepubescent children to be able to decide their own sex, and change it daily if desired.
The same "progressives" are generally the ones fighting tooth and nail for the involvement of "fact" checkers to inform the public of what is truth and what is not.
Seems like hypocrisy to me!
As someone who is partial to using the phrase 'lived experience' myself, I find it ironic that open discourse is now a concept more associated with conservatism than progressivism.
Including indigenous perspectives as alternative perspectives (not myths as facts) is what open-minded teachers should do, after all, this is Australia, land of Indigenous Aboriginal Australians.
A democracy should foster greater conversations about broader perspectives, rather than narrowing down to one mainstream perspective.
Discussions, conversations, and sharing opinions are what elicit deeper understanding, greater appreciation for diversity and a more harmonious community.
Just like this conversation, being able to share an alternative perspective - such as, I do not believe the Australian Curriculum directs teachers to teach Indigenous Creation stories as facts - is the essence of free speech.
We needed greater discussions within and across our communities, rather than being forced fed ideologies downwards from those on high:
Perhaps the values would greater reflect our citizenry rather than those who shape our leaders.
If Fakebook's "Community Standards" remain in place, how can we expect the censorship industrial process to stop banning verboten topics for mere "Breach of Community Guidelines: Medical Misinformation"?
Hard to tell yet what will happen on that front. The Misinformation policy page still says they partner with third party fact-checkers so I assume it hasn't undergone an overhaul yet. https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/misinformation/