• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook and Fact Checking

Jeff Wagg said:
So what is someone dedicated to understanding objective reality as much as possible do? How does a curious person satiate themselves in a world where facts and fiction have the same value?

Does "the truth" require authority?
Click to expand...

I've wrestled with these questions, due to enquiries from friends, who recognise that good information sources are hard to find.

This site, is the closest thing that I've found.

There are specialist sites, like Slashdot or The Register, but they are quite limited in content/scope.

I've relied on published works, and have an eclectic library, but it is a long and lonely path.

It bothers me when I see 'news' services delivering 'puff pieces' and 'advertising disguised as journalism' but suspect that it has always been the way of the world.

And, I agree with Orphia Nay above, while ISF and Slashdot qualify as 'social media' I see myself as a person who doesn't do social media.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
I used to live here. Then I moved. I came to visit a few times and found that you can never go home again.

But now I'm leaving Facebook, which has been my home for about 19 years, and @arthwollipot suggested I come back, so here I am, giving it a try.

On my mind is how to exist in a "post-truth" or maybe "post-fact" world. "Social truth," that is, an agreed upon set of "facts" are now more powerful than actual facts.

So what is someone dedicated to understanding objective reality as much as possible do? How does a curious person satiate themselves in a world where facts and fiction have the same value?

Does "the truth" require authority?
Click to expand...
If your primary interest is being "dedicated to understanding objective reality", I don't see how Facebook should now or have ever been part of that plan. Facebook is a social networking site for keeping in touch with people.

And welcome back to ISF, although I'd give the same disclaimer about this site.

If you're really dedicated to understanding objective reality, you are going about it strangely.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Facebook is a social networking site for keeping in touch with people.

And welcome back to ISF, although I'd give the same disclaimer about this site.
Click to expand...
ISF is a social networking site for keeping in touch with people??

I have never frequented the community forums, so it has never occurred to me that this is a social networking site.
You can certainly apply disclaimers to this site, but in general, I think that you are more likely to ascertain the truth here - eventually - than in most other sites.
 
steenkh said:
ISF is a social networking site for keeping in touch with people??

I have never frequented the community forums, so it has never occurred to me that this is a social networking site.
You can certainly apply disclaimers to this site, but in general, I think that you are more likely to ascertain the truth here - eventually - than in most other sites.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious response?
I was referring to the disclaimer that Facebook should not be viewed as a tool to help one objectively understand reality.

No, I don't think ISF is a social networking site for keeping in touch with people.
 
My decision to leave Facebook has caused an incredible amount of drama. It's disturbing how much power social media has over our lives, and just how few people control it. One guy controls communication for about 2 billion people. We don't use Whatsapp much in the US, but I've seen how pervasive it is in other countries.

I'm now forced to consider staying.
 
zooterkin said:
Who is promoting that, and why?
Click to expand...
I use Facebook constantly, mostly because I like to post any random observation that comes into my head. (not that I don't do that here...). But it's also useful for my family as a sort of RUOK alert. If I don't post for a couple days someone usually checks up on me.
I only use Messenger when I'm traveling because it only works as a separate app on the phone (as opposed to just a sidebar on the laptop). And there's no way to deactivate it unless you Uninstall it on the phone.
Metaquest is the VR headset - I just play a few games and nothing else. I leave it logged in.
I don't use any of the other enormously popular ones listed and at this point don't see any need for them.
But going off FB for a week is not an option. I'd be much more willing to engage in a TwiX boycott because I get nothing but irritated by 90% of the posts there.
 
I don't partake in the Book of Faces. Mostly because having seen posts from people I know, it revealed that they are... let's say very different than I thought they were. Doubly so for Xwitter. Voltaire, gardens and all that. I just don't want to know anymore.

Although my wife's faceybook let's me know when people die and are getting married and what they had for dinner and stuff. So that's nice.
 
Last edited:
I can only recall one instance where I saw Facebook factchecking someone's post. Facebook, dare I say it, was right to stop doing it, because it wasn't working anyway.

Facebook is for people getting together, and occasionally there will be bad actors, and Facebook is right to focus new efforts on combatting that.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Facebook is for people getting together, and occasionally there will be bad actors, and Facebook is right to focus new efforts on combatting that.
Click to expand...
Except Facebook does not intend to focus on new efforts on combatting misinformation. They want to replace it with users in the same bubble voting on what they think should be “facts”.
 
arthwollipot said:
Slashdot still exists?
Click to expand...

If you're not interested in IT (particularly linux) I could see why you don't visit it.

However, it is still 'News for nerds, stuff that matters.'

And it is still in the same place, struggling to see how you're confused about this.

Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. Timely news source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues.
slashdot.org
 
I think you're all missing the big deal here: This was done at the behest of an authoritarian government executive.

Zuckerberg didn't believe in it. Facebook didn't believe in it. It wasn't a service Facebook users actually wanted. It wasn't good for business. The only reason Facebook did it was to preserve some amount of autonomy in the face of pressure from the executive branch. As soon as that pressure lessened with the prospect of a different administration taking office, Meta dropped the whole thing.

The truth is, nobody actually wants some government-mandated corporate thought police goons injecting themselves into their conversations to enforce Correct Thought. They want it to happen to everyone else, but not enough to pay extra for it. Which is why Meta dropped it like a hot potato the moment they could. It costs money, without any commensurate business payoff - neither for Facebook's users nor its advertisers.

---

I suppose the other hypothesis is that this was a pure Invisible Hand play by Meta. They tried a business strategy, saw it didn't pay off, and abandoned it. The correlation with current sociopolitical vicissitudes is entirely coincidental.
 
steenkh said:
Except Facebook does not intend to focus on new efforts on combatting misinformation. They want to replace it with users in the same bubble voting on what they think should be “facts”.
Click to expand...
Depends what you call misinformation. They are focusing on combatting scammers, terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, and fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom