GregR
Footballguy
I just edited my post, found the starter pack in the main FBG account: https://bsky.app/starter-pack/footballguys.com/3laweqdonib2w
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Twitter Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Capella
- Start date
- Status
I just edited my post, found the starter pack in the main FBG account: https://bsky.app/starter-pack/footballguys.com/3laweqdonib2w
Thanks. @Joey Wright I'm still lost. And pointing people to dead links. What is the right link for me to share and what do I have wrong? So frustrating.
GregR
Footballguy
This is the link to your main Footballguys page there: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:c6fb3gax3qbr53fvpdtjuxgs
And then this link is the starter pack that would let people follow all or selectively follow your writers: https://bsky.app/starter-pack/footballguys.com/3laweqdonib2w
The latter is also the first pinned post that shows on the FBG home page.
Hey guys! Here are our official links. We went through the process of verifying Footballguys.com to our Bluesky account so you can be assured any info shared by our Bluesky account is from us!
Here is our PROFILE LINK
Here is our FOOTBALLGUYS STARTER PACK LINK - helps you follow all your favorite Footballguys analysts with one click!
As more people join, we will be bringing you a NEWS starter pack as well as some other helpful resources!
Here is our PROFILE LINK
Here is our FOOTBALLGUYS STARTER PACK LINK - helps you follow all your favorite Footballguys analysts with one click!
As more people join, we will be bringing you a NEWS starter pack as well as some other helpful resources!
Sister Havana
Footballguy
Oh thanks! I just followed everyone on that list.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Zuckerberg announced today that Facebook is replacing fact-checkers with a community notes-like system, and also lightening up on how political topics are moderated. In other words, becoming much more like current Twitter.
The community note feature on Twitter works extremely well in my experience, much better than professional fact-checkers. Not even in the same universe actually. That was a good innovation.
The community note feature on Twitter works extremely well in my experience, much better than professional fact-checkers. Not even in the same universe actually. That was a good innovation.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Aside from the recent vibe change, a more concrete answer is that Musk did it first. Even at this level, sometimes a person needs to successfully demonstrate proof-of-concept before others follow. Looking back at this thread, it was not at all obvious at the time that Twitter/X would work out under Musk's model.
Max Power
Footballguy
I'm happy with how twitter uses community notes and do agree it should be good for Facebook going forward.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek there as Facebook's previous model was driven by legacy media which is clearly circling the drain. It's a smart decision to move away from that style.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Well I did get blocked from the SEC fan page. I guess the truth hurts.
A more accurate statement is that Twitter did community notes first with BirdWatch, even before Musk bought the company. He should get credit for keeping and improving community notes, which is better than outright censoring as happened with some legitimate ideas on social media. Isn't Wikipedia like a big community notes?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I was talking about whole moderation model. At the time, people were predicting that advertisers would pull out (they did) and that it would sink the platform (it did not). As you noted, the move away from top-down censorship is starting to look like a path not taken, for better or for worse.
McBokonon
Footballguy
Well, by most indications it's not a profitable enterprise (they struggled before Musk bought it, too, because the ad model is just hard to nail down on that platform.) This October article goes over some numbers as it attempts to discern how the platform is doing financially. They correctly acknowledge that it's hard to know for sure 100% because it's a private company. So, the platform hasn't sunk, but it also has a billionaire owner with access to capital that can keep it afloat independent of the actual business model. Saying it hasn't sunk because Musk's Twitter business model is "working" is a stretch, at best, based on what we know.
None of that has anything to do with Community Notes, though, which I like.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
titusbramble
Footballguy
Financials, probably
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
My facebook feed is so full of fake stories and ads and AI deep fakes I don’t look at it. Barely anything from friends other than stories — which are also on instagram.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Twitter is worse than it was in years past IMO, but still infinitely better than Threads and Bluesky.
Max Power
Footballguy
I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Bluesky needs the news services and reporters. Once they get them, it will be thr platform of choice IMO.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Think it comes down to people getting most of their info on their phones and desiring short bits, people don't want to read newspapers or magazines and less people are watching news on TVThe part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Max Power
Footballguy
Legacy media is supposed to be above reproach. They had a higher standard and failed to uphold it. News became opinionated which it shouldnt be. All the while censoring information and views they disagreed with. Fact checking became a game of semantics and people saw it for what it became.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Community notes became a better alternative to legacy fact checking in part due to not having an agenda.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Why do you say community notes don’t have agendas?Legacy media is supposed to be above reproach. They had a higher standard and failed to uphold it. News became opinionated which it shouldnt be. All the while censoring information and views they disagreed with. Fact checking became a game of semantics and people saw it for what it became.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Community notes became a better alternative to legacy fact checking in part due to not having an agenda.
titusbramble
Footballguy
Well, for one, Community Notes generally requires people who are generally opposed to the person writing the note in question before it appears to the general public. That, and it's open source. Of course, there will be bad actors trying to pull all kinds of crap, but with how it is set up it is much more transparent if someone is trying itWhy do you say community notes don’t have agendas?Legacy media is supposed to be above reproach. They had a higher standard and failed to uphold it. News became opinionated which it shouldnt be. All the while censoring information and views they disagreed with. Fact checking became a game of semantics and people saw it for what it became.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Community notes became a better alternative to legacy fact checking in part due to not having an agenda.
Max Power
Footballguy
They are non paid, crowd sourced notes with the agenda of countering propaganda and misinformation.Why do you say community notes don’t have agendas?Legacy media is supposed to be above reproach. They had a higher standard and failed to uphold it. News became opinionated which it shouldnt be. All the while censoring information and views they disagreed with. Fact checking became a game of semantics and people saw it for what it became.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Community notes became a better alternative to legacy fact checking in part due to not having an agenda.
for those interested:
www.poynter.org
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
www.poynter.org
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The legacy media had a problem figuring out how to cover Trump when he won in 2016. To be fair, he was a highly unusual president and nobody really expected him to win, so the whole thing came as a shock. They went with "resist" ("Democracy Dies in Darkness"), which seemed like a reasonable choice to me at the time -- not what I would have picked, but I get it and I didn't object. Now Trump has been reelected and these media organizations barely even exist. I would not have bet on this outcome in, say, 2018 if you had offered me 10:1 odds.Legacy media is supposed to be above reproach. They had a higher standard and failed to uphold it. News became opinionated which it shouldnt be. All the while censoring information and views they disagreed with. Fact checking became a game of semantics and people saw it for what it became.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
Community notes became a better alternative to legacy fact checking in part due to not having an agenda.
IMO, we are all going to rue the destruction of the fourth estate at some point. We no longer have a shared set of facts that we're all operating from. It's funny at the moment because our tribe is benefitting from all of this, but that won't last forever, and this isn't a sign of a healthy society regardless.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This article just illustrates why nobody trusts self-appointed "fact checkers." They're hacks.for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
We gave these people a chance, and they failed. It's 100% on them. If you set yourself up to the neutral, objective arbiter of truth, you better be above reproach, as @Max Power pointed out. Not surprisingly, these folks were just normal people subject to the same tribal pressures as everybody else. And now here we are.
The media. Government. Academia. The people at the controls chose to steer the plane directly into the nearest mountain, and we are all that much poorer for it. But they chose to do that.
Last edited:
Huh? The article was about Community NotesThis article just illustrates why nobody trusts self-appointed "fact checkers." They're hacks.for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
We gave these people a chance, and they failed. It's 100% on them. If you set yourself up to the neutral, objective arbiter of truth, you better be above reproach, as @Max Power pointed out. Not surprisingly, these folks were just normal people subject to the same tribal pressures as everybody else. And now here we are.
The media. Government. Academia. The people at the controls chose to steer the plane directly into the nearest mountain, and we are all that much poorer for it. But they chose to do that.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
No it wasn't. The article was about a convention of self-appointed fact-checkers, and it describes the way they get high on their own supply. That's just not the article that the author intended to write, which is kind of par for the course these days.Huh? The article was about Community NotesThis article just illustrates why nobody trusts self-appointed "fact checkers." They're hacks.for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
We gave these people a chance, and they failed. It's 100% on them. If you set yourself up to the neutral, objective arbiter of truth, you better be above reproach, as @Max Power pointed out. Not surprisingly, these folks were just normal people subject to the same tribal pressures as everybody else. And now here we are.
The media. Government. Academia. The people at the controls chose to steer the plane directly into the nearest mountain, and we are all that much poorer for it. But they chose to do that.
djmich
Footballguy
The example they give:for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
Twitter users added a note that said, “As of 2021 data, 64% of ‘Black or African American’ children lived in single-parent families,” and cited outdated data.
Mahadevan said that Community Note, which added no substance and included misleading data, was publicly added to a CNN tweet.
“It was a racist note based on faulty data,” he said.
Nowhere in this article did it supply any data showing that the datapoint community notes added is incorrect. I asked Chatgpt and it corroborated the number was valid as of the 2022 census as well. And I'm not sure why this article is implying that the data is racist? This seems to me exactly why you would not want biased sources doing fact checks, whom will not include data that is factual but they deem "racist".
Now, if one wants to argue that just because its a single parent household that doesn't mean that the father is not very actively present...I think that would be a good counterpoint, if there was data to support it, but either way single parent households is an issue, for all of the US. But it doesn't help to not acknowledge where it is exacerbated, which has an impact on outcomes (which people claim they want to change).
I'm going to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
FairWarning
Footballguy
They may be worse at getting the facts correct at the start, but they do get them correct. Legacy media just moves on. I have no idea why I subscribe to legacy media, their sports suck thanks to budget cutbacks.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That's their purpose though. "Fact checkers" aren't there to get the facts right. They're party officials (or clerics, if you prefer) who are appointed to positions to make sure that nobody is thinking bad thoughts. Literally -- that's not a metaphor or an analogy. That's their actual function. If we called them "commissars" or "inquisitors" there would be no confusion about any of this.The example they give:for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
Twitter users added a note that said, “As of 2021 data, 64% of ‘Black or African American’ children lived in single-parent families,” and cited outdated data.
Mahadevan said that Community Note, which added no substance and included misleading data, was publicly added to a CNN tweet.
“It was a racist note based on faulty data,” he said.
Nowhere in this article did it supply any data showing that the datapoint community notes added is incorrect. I asked Chatgpt and it corroborated the number was valid as of the 2022 census as well. And I'm not sure why this article is implying that the data is racist? This seems to me exactly why you would not want biased sources doing fact checks, whom will not include data that is factual but they deem "racist".
Now, if one wants to argue that just because its a single parent household that doesn't mean that the father is not very actively present...I think that would be a good counterpoint, if there was data to support it, but either way single parent households is an issue, for all of the US. But it doesn't help to not acknowledge where it is exacerbated, which has an impact on outcomes (which people claim they want to change).
I'm going to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
I mentioned above that I've been personally shocked and rattled by the collapse of legacy media. But the implosion of the "fact checking" industry was the most predictable thing of all times. We've always known that power corrupts, and I have no idea why anybody thought that this would be an exception. If you create a position where an individual human being gets to adjudicate what's "true" and what's "false" for the whole society, the first people in line to sign up for such a position are going to be the absolute last people you would ever trust with that kind of authority. Those selection effects are real, and previous generations learned those lessons through hard experience. It kind of sucks that we had to re-learn it.
Last edited:
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
A Twitter/X link about the man behind Community Notes, Keith Coleman.
>>Not enough people know the person behind Community Notes is
@kcoleman
— it launched in Jan 2021 under the name Birdwatch. His product vision withstood the test of 3 CEOs (Jack, Parag & Elon) and is expanding to Meta’s massive user base. Absolutely legendary product sense.<<
I don't get Zuckerberg's California diss about moving moderation to Texas. Keith Coleman is from CA, and many tech bros in CA are staunch Trump supporters. Trump got over 6 million votes in CA, about the same as in TX and FL.
>>In an Instagram post, Zuckerberg said this move “will help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content.”<<
>>Not enough people know the person behind Community Notes is
@kcoleman
— it launched in Jan 2021 under the name Birdwatch. His product vision withstood the test of 3 CEOs (Jack, Parag & Elon) and is expanding to Meta’s massive user base. Absolutely legendary product sense.<<
I don't get Zuckerberg's California diss about moving moderation to Texas. Keith Coleman is from CA, and many tech bros in CA are staunch Trump supporters. Trump got over 6 million votes in CA, about the same as in TX and FL.
>>In an Instagram post, Zuckerberg said this move “will help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content.”<<
TennesseeJed
Footballguy
The example they give:for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
Twitter users added a note that said, “As of 2021 data, 64% of ‘Black or African American’ children lived in single-parent families,” and cited outdated data.
Mahadevan said that Community Note, which added no substance and included misleading data, was publicly added to a CNN tweet.
“It was a racist note based on faulty data,” he said.
Nowhere in this article did it supply any data showing that the datapoint community notes added is incorrect. I asked Chatgpt and it corroborated the number was valid as of the 2022 census as well. And I'm not sure why this article is implying that the data is racist? This seems to me exactly why you would not want biased sources doing fact checks, whom will not include data that is factual but they deem "racist".
Now, if one wants to argue that just because its a single parent household that doesn't mean that the father is not very actively present...I think that would be a good counterpoint, if there was data to support it, but either way single parent households is an issue, for all of the US. But it doesn't help to not acknowledge where it is exacerbated, which has an impact on outcomes (which people claim they want to change).
I'm going to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
You might need to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2023
Juvenile Population Characteristics: About 70 million Americans1 in 4are younger than 18, the age group commonly referred to as juveniles. This section of SBB provides basic statistics and quality-of-life indicators for this population group. This section provides demographic data on the...
www.ojjdp.gov
According to the DOJ - the percentage of African American kids living in a two-parent home is 44.6% (so by extension, single family homes would be 55.4%)
Not sure I would be asking, or trusting "ChatGPT" as an authoritative source on anything...
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This just seems like a different set of researchers coming up with similar but not exactly identical statistical findings that arrive at the same general point. I read this as broadly backing up djmich's point.The example they give:for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
Twitter users added a note that said, “As of 2021 data, 64% of ‘Black or African American’ children lived in single-parent families,” and cited outdated data.
Mahadevan said that Community Note, which added no substance and included misleading data, was publicly added to a CNN tweet.
“It was a racist note based on faulty data,” he said.
Nowhere in this article did it supply any data showing that the datapoint community notes added is incorrect. I asked Chatgpt and it corroborated the number was valid as of the 2022 census as well. And I'm not sure why this article is implying that the data is racist? This seems to me exactly why you would not want biased sources doing fact checks, whom will not include data that is factual but they deem "racist".
Now, if one wants to argue that just because its a single parent household that doesn't mean that the father is not very actively present...I think that would be a good counterpoint, if there was data to support it, but either way single parent households is an issue, for all of the US. But it doesn't help to not acknowledge where it is exacerbated, which has an impact on outcomes (which people claim they want to change).
I'm going to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
You might need to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2023
Juvenile Population Characteristics: About 70 million Americans1 in 4are younger than 18, the age group commonly referred to as juveniles. This section of SBB provides basic statistics and quality-of-life indicators for this population group. This section provides demographic data on the...www.ojjdp.gov
According to the DOJ - the percentage of African American kids living in a two-parent home is 44.6% (so by extension, single family homes would be 55.4%)
Not sure I would be asking, or trusting "ChatGPT" as an authoritative source on anything...
TennesseeJed
Footballguy
ANd I read this as: People can always see what they want to see.This just seems like a different set of researchers coming up with similar but not exactly identical statistical findings that arrive at the same general point. I read this as broadly backing up djmich's point.The example they give:for those interested:
Why Community Notes mostly fails to combat misinformation - Poynter
An attempt to solve ‘the problem of biased fact-checkers’ has left most Notes unseen by public, fact-checking conference is told.
Twitter users added a note that said, “As of 2021 data, 64% of ‘Black or African American’ children lived in single-parent families,” and cited outdated data.
Mahadevan said that Community Note, which added no substance and included misleading data, was publicly added to a CNN tweet.
“It was a racist note based on faulty data,” he said.
Nowhere in this article did it supply any data showing that the datapoint community notes added is incorrect. I asked Chatgpt and it corroborated the number was valid as of the 2022 census as well. And I'm not sure why this article is implying that the data is racist? This seems to me exactly why you would not want biased sources doing fact checks, whom will not include data that is factual but they deem "racist".
Now, if one wants to argue that just because its a single parent household that doesn't mean that the father is not very actively present...I think that would be a good counterpoint, if there was data to support it, but either way single parent households is an issue, for all of the US. But it doesn't help to not acknowledge where it is exacerbated, which has an impact on outcomes (which people claim they want to change).
I'm going to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
You might need to give this fact check of the fact check a djmich misinformation label lol.
Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2023
Juvenile Population Characteristics: About 70 million Americans1 in 4are younger than 18, the age group commonly referred to as juveniles. This section of SBB provides basic statistics and quality-of-life indicators for this population group. This section provides demographic data on the...www.ojjdp.gov
According to the DOJ - the percentage of African American kids living in a two-parent home is 44.6% (so by extension, single family homes would be 55.4%)
Not sure I would be asking, or trusting "ChatGPT" as an authoritative source on anything...
There are not too many places where you can say 67% = 55%. (or even statistically close...)
But, since I have learned you are always right, I'll just hold up my hands with a mea culpa and move on.
djmich
Footballguy
It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.
Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then
I take Zuckerberg at his word. He seems involved in his company and I'd expect he'd know.
www.forbes.com
Meta Removes Third-Party Fact Checkers Over ‘Bias’ Fears
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that third-party fact checkers will be replaced by "community notes" on Facebook and Instagram, to help address the perception of bias.
www.forbes.com
A question I do think is logical to ask is how exactly does a community note get posted?
What's to keep crazy people (on any side) from posting community notes? I assume Wikipedia has the same issue, right?
What's to keep crazy people (on any side) from posting community notes? I assume Wikipedia has the same issue, right?
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.
Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then
I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".
Max Power
Footballguy
Sounds like any proposed note goes to a committee of verified users who vote on if the note is arcuate and relevant. If it passes the vote it gets posted.
SWC
Bromigo
all i know is that i still think twitter is the best sports recruiting vehicle out there and everyone uses it but man i spend a lot of time clearing and blocking political junk all i want is womens basketball i dont want alex jones and elon musk with whatever pot stirring stuff they have and to keep that off is something of a nearly daily block block block exercise take that to the bank bromigos
djmich
Footballguy
It’s as much work as shopping in a Bazaar. Yes, you actually have to walk through and examine different wares. Yes, when you pick up a wood flute all the wood flute sellers are going to offer their wares to you.This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.
Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then
I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".
To you this is a bug, to me it’s a feature. I trust myself, you don’t trust me, you’d rather I trust what the suit in the big monolithic marble building, who is also getting paid to drive my engagement and return business, wants me to buy.
That’s ok you use your seller and I’ll use mine. I’m just trying to help you understand why some people don’t want to obtain information from the same sources you do.
I don't know what's amazing or if anyone is turning this into something it's not. As @Max Power said, I assume it's not that simple as just posting a "rebuttal." But it's a question worth asking.
As to what this is, I defer to the CEO of the company who's actively involved in most aspects.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Yes to the bolded. The leaked internal reports from TikTok really prove that and how dangerous it is. Their internal evidence shows how quickly people especially teens can become addicted. It’s shockingly quick and their studies show it does cause depression, decrease communication skills and disrupt relationships. Worst of all is that they are trying to figure out how to maximize how depressed it can make users just short of them killing themselves because their research shows higher levels of depression will lead to more time spent on the app. They are creating a product designed make users addicted and unhappy.This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.I assume this is sarcasm?
Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.
American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.
It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.
Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.
“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”
If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.
Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then
I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".
- Status
Similar threads
