That’s a shallow take. Opting for community notes without any fact checking will transform truth from facts to “loudest voice”. So, who can yell louder will be accepted as the flag of truth, which is very dangerous.
Of course, if you like your propaganda well-done, Facebook will be a great place for that.
I've found X's community notes for the most part to be informative and "neutral", they're usually used to add context to posts when people cut the important parts out.
The feature was not bad when it was first introduced, but I don't know how it fares against brigading and more targeted psyops by bigger actors.
Also are we absolutely sure that community notes have immunity from moderators and they're not manipulated in any way?
Community notes are indeed a good feature at first blush, but considering the current climate of "freedom of speech / post-truth / let's move fast and break society norms", it's more dangerous than a group of allegedly biased fact checkers.
It's a way of deregulating the social media platforms to level of utilities which carry whatever passes through them without prejudice, and shifting blame to the people for believing what they read.
The thing they're designing is very ripe for manipulating people en masse.
You're right, it's a shallow take in response to a straw man of my position. Clearly content moderation is a HARD problem and the decision-makers at Facebook know this better than almost anyone. They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest, of which I happen to support.
Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means. I won’t start a list here, but their effects on our world is pretty profound.
So, being elected is by no means an indicator of any sort.
Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad, that is a straw man you have created to argue with.
Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. This is easily variable by looking at the platform of the winning party and the policies of the so-called fact checkers.
> Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad
That's true, incl. me.
> that is a straw man you have created to argue with.
Did I said or implied Trump is bad? No. What I said is, being elected is not an indicator of goodness of badness of a leader, and said that there's a large list, without giving any names, because goodness and badness is subjective.
> Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people.
Yes. That part is true, too. People wanted that particular flavor this time, and will decide whether they liked the experience or not.
> The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services.
"So-called" from your perspective, so from that point on your opinions are biased, and there's no point on arguing any further.
Of course you're free to vote for whoever you want, and AFAICS, the person you support has won. Congrats. My only hope is what you get in the end won't be more than what you bargained for.
BTW, on that "getting men out of women's sports" thing, watch this video [0]. In the end, performance is enhanced so much, the gap between genders are closed nevertheless. On the other hand, gender in Olympic games are determined with genetic testing anyway, so your looks doesn't have any effect on whom you compete with.
Maybe we should prevent this in the future, so humans can compete with their true potential, not with "monstrous performances" enabled by designer drugs and doping. So there's a whole forest running when people are looking to the wrong tree.
Precisely, you wrote you will see whether Trump is bad:
> Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means.
You then wrote that being elected is by no means and indicator. It is not an indication of being good or bad, but rather an indication of the will of people. Which in this case, for the fifth time is that men should be out of women’s spaces.
I don’t think this conversation is working. We have very different ways of engaging in debate.
> You then wrote that being elected is by no means and indicator.
Yes.
> It is not an indication of being good or bad, but rather an indication of the will of people.
I did tell "elected by people and by democratic means", which squarely means "this was the will of the people", so we have no disagreements on that front.
> Which in this case, for the fifth time is that men should be out of women’s spaces.
?
> I don’t think this conversation is working.
That's absolutely correct.
> We have very different ways of engaging in debate.
* Trump has explicitly threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg [1]
* Trump has threatened to use the justice system against his enemies
* Trump's 'best mate' (who's about to get a job in government) owns a rival social network
* Facebook banned Trump over the Jan 6th insurrection
* Trump could use the banning of TikTok as leverage
With all that Occam's Razor tells you that an authoritarian leader is taking over the USA and the oligarchy that are the tech-billionaires are lining up behind him lest they feel his wrath.
These are extremely dangerous times for the US. An authoritarian leader paired with an extreme concentration of power (the tech companies). You have something approaching a turnkey feudal system. With willing participants.
Of course, if you like your propaganda well-done, Facebook will be a great place for that.