Facebook forventer sider og grupper til at fungere som deres egne uafhængige fact- checkers, hvorfor det er et problem
Siliciumdal, california - Hilsner verden! vi, er den organisation alliance, med, anonyme allierede! Jeg er Kyle James Lee, majoritetsejer af iscenesættelsen.
Vi ved nu, at Facebook ser Business og Fan Sider, eller Grupper, som om de opfører sig som deres egen uafhængige fact- checker, selv før fakta er blevet kontrolleret.
For eksempel, når en original video upload, fra en persons personlige profil konto, eller en anden side eller gruppe, bliver delt til en anden side, eller i en anden gruppe, og så bliver videoen markeret afFacebookfact- checkers, som er falsk indhold, er ikke kun den oprindelige kilde markeret som falsk indhold, men så er aktierne til andre sider og grupper, og alligevel, den oprindelige video upload, stadig på Facebook.
Another example, is when a page posts a website link, and that link ends up being or has already been flagged as false news, then the page that posted the link gets flagged, for posting false news. This happens even though the page hasn’t taken ownership of that website, through Business Manager settings, an App ID, or a publisher ID. The same goes for websites posted in groups, and the group gets flagged, for posting false news.
Der var engang noget lignende skete med en side, jeg administrerede, navngivet Anonym Worldwide, hvor en video fra en personlig profil blev delt med siden, blev videoen også delt med vores, Organisationsalliancegruppen. Andelen til den side, jeg administrerer blev markeret som falske nyheder af Associated PressMen denne andel i vores gruppe blev ikke markeret, men i mellemtiden forblev den oprindelige upload på den personlige profil på Facebook, selv efter at være blevet fakt- kontrolleret som falsk. Jeg har haft min mistanke siden da, at Anonym verdensside, blev kun rettet mod den type side, det er, mens vores Organisationsalliancegruppen, der har et rent indhold rekord, var ikke.
The same goes for photos, such as memes that are flagged as being false news, and the pages and groups end up suffering the consequences for it. Such false news being posted leads to restrictions for the pages and groups, such as limiting the page or group from showing up in users’ news feeds, or search results or the page is restricted from posting and commenting in groups it’s a member of. In the worst-case scenario, the page or group may even be purged, removed from Facebook.
Organisatorisk alliance side har ikke disse problemer med fact- brikker siden vores hjemmeside is known to post credible content and news. We do understand that false content can misinform some people, who will believe it’s true, even in cases where a fact-checker has rated the content as false, because the person truly believes the content they saw, and sometimes fact-checkers have been proven to be wrong. However, it seems that Facebook is punishing these pages and groups, as though they were intentionally posting false content, that they knew about it, that they knew they were lying to, or misinforming people, even before the fact-checkers have rated the content as false.
I’m sure there are cases where people intentionally misinform others, but not when just a few posts have slipped by over time, and now the page or group has restrictions placed on it, even though they previously had a credible content record, even for a long time, and were practically unaware that any content was false. With groups, it gets even more hectic than a page, because there will be random group members posting content, which aren’t always moderated or having to be approved by admins and mods. Then, if posts do need to be approved before they’re posted in a group, false content may slip by the group admins and mods, who are unaware the content is false, and now that entire group is punished, all because, of “a few bad apples.”
Facebook renset en masse uafhængige medierfra sin platform, meget af det, der bogførte faktuelle og troværdige nyheder, og nu de sociale medier gigant er efterladt med falsk indhold kører raspende, mens sider og grupper stadig straffes, før eller endda længe efter indholdet er blevet bedømt som falsk af fact- checkers.
Alt dette fører til den konklusion, atFacebookforventer sider og grupper til at fungere som deres egne uafhængige factchecker gateways, men brugerne er ikke, og bør ikke være forpligtet til at kontrollere og forske deres egne fakta, især før factcheckers har endda bedømt indholdet som falsk. Det job er beregnet tilfaktiske fact- checkers, ansat og betalt af Facebook til netop dette formål, ikke brugere, der behandles som marsvin, og som er forpligtet til at gøre arbejdet for dem, uden løn, på bekostning af deres sider og grupper omdømme, på egen risiko og risiko.
The mainstream media isn’t innocent in all of this either, and it’s similar to Facebook in a way. Whether it’s MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, or others, sure, they’ll show you some facts, but then they’ll also throw in some misleading or misinforming content or propaganda, or completely ignore important information because it doesn’t fit into their biased narrative agenda.
Landskabet beskrevet ovenfor flyttet dramatisk den 7. januar 2025, da Mark Zuckerberg meddelte, at Meta ville skrotte hele sin tredjeparts fact- kontrol program i USA og erstatte det med en crowd-sources Fællesskabsnoter system modeled on the one Elon Musk adopted at X. In a video message titled “More speech and fewer mistakes,” Zuckerberg argued that professional fact-checkers had become “too politically biased” and had “destroyed more trust than they’ve created.” Whatever one makes of that framing, it amounted to a tacit admission of exactly what this article warned about back in 2020: that the fact-checking apparatus had been wielded as a blunt instrument against pages, groups, and ordinary users. Den vigtigste del af ændringen, for de sider og grupper, der er beskrevet her, er, at Meta gik med til at Stop degradering af fakt- markeret indhold and to stop applying account strikes when a U.S.-based account, Page, or Group shares content that a fact-checker had rated false. In other words, the punishment-by-association mechanism — the original upload staying up while every share got penalized — was the precise behavior Meta walked back. Meta’s global affairs chief Joel Kaplan confirmed in March 2025 that content carrying a Community Note would face no distribution penalty and no strike at all. The company began rolling Community Notes out to U.S. users in March 2025 and wound down the old program later that year. Intet af dette betyder, at det underliggende problem er løst, og det ville være naivt at behandle Meta 's pivot som en sejr for nøjagtighed. Kritikere, herunder forskere på Center for demokrati og teknologi, point out that with no distribution penalties at all, demonstrably false and harmful content can now spread without friction, while studies have found that many accurate Community Notes never get shown to the users who saw the original false claim. The pendulum swung from a system that over-punished pages and groups to one that may under-protect users from coordinated manipulation. As we argued in 2020, the burden of sorting truth from falsehood should never have been quietly offloaded onto unpaid page and group admins — and a crowd-rating model still leans on volunteer labor to do work that platforms profit from. For more on how Facebook has historically treated independent voices, see our earlier reporting on the masseudrensning af uafhængige medier og vores senere dækning af Meta opgive fact- kontrol for x- stil Community NotesFor hvem vi er, se Hello World og Organisationernes alliance nyheder. "Organisering, i organisation alliance, står for, aktivisterne - alliance for eksponering af regeringens intelligens og hemmeligheder.
"De er anonyme, de tilgiver ikke, og de vil aldrig glemme. Du skulle have forventet Legionen".
