Meta ends fact-checking program as Zuckerberg vows to restore free expression on Facebook, Instagram - Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, joins 'Fox & Friends' Tuesday morning for exclusive interview

Destacado
By Brooke Singman Fox News
Published January 7, 2025 7:02am EST | Updated January 7, 2025 7:33am EST

FIRST ON FOX – Meta is ending its fact-checking program and lifting restrictions on speech to "restore free expression" across Facebook, Instagram and Meta platforms, admitting its current content moderation practices have "gone too far."

"We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted Tuesday morning. "More specifically, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the U.S."

Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, will be on Fox News Channel’s "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning for an exclusive interview to discuss the changes.

Meta’s third-party fact-checking program was put in place after the 2016 election and had been used to "manage content" and misinformation on its platforms, largely due to "political pressure," executives said, but admitted the system has "gone too far."

"We went to independent, third-party fact-checkers," Kaplan told Fox News Digital in an interview. "It has become clear there is too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check because, basically, they get to fact-check whatever they see on the platform."

Kaplan told Fox News Digital that Meta is "ending that completely" and will replace it with a "Community Notes" model similar to the one used on X, formerly Twitter.

"Instead of going to some so-called expert, it instead relies on the community and the people on the platform to provide their own commentary to something that they’ve read," Kaplan explained, noting that if a note gets support from "the broadest cross-section of users," that note can be attached to the content for others to see.

"We think that’s a much better approach rather than relying on so-called experts who bring their own biases into the program," Kaplan said.

Kaplan also told Fox News Digital that Meta is changing some of its own content moderation rules, especially those that they feel are "too restrictive and not allowing enough discourse around sensitive topics like immigration, trans issues and gender."

"We want to make sure that discourse can happen freely on the platform without fear of censorship," Kaplan told Fox News Digital. "We have the power to change the rules and make them more supportive of free expression. And we’re not just changing the rules, we are actually changing how we enforce the rules."

Kaplan said Meta currently uses automated systems, which he said make "too many mistakes" and removes content "that doesn’t even violate our standards."

He also said there are certain things Meta will continue to moderate, like posts relating to terrorism, illegal drugs and child sexual exploitation.

But as for the timing of the changes, Kaplan told Fox News Digital the company has "a real opportunity now."

"We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression," Kaplan said, referring to the incoming Trump administration. "It gets us back to the values that Mark founded the company on."

Last year, Zuckerberg sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted that he felt pressure from the Biden administration, particularly with regard to COVID content, and even items like satire and humor.

"The thing is, as American companies, when other governments around the world that don’t have our tradition or our First Amendment, when they see the United States government pressuring U.S. companies to take down content, it is just open season then for those governments to put more pressure [on their companies]," Kaplan explained. "We do think it is a real opportunity to work with the Trump administration and to work on free expression at home."

Kaplan also said Meta sees "opportunities for partnership" with the Trump administration, not only on issues of free expression but also in "promoting American business and America’s technological edge."

"Those are issues of great importance to Meta and our sector," Kaplan told Fox News Digital. "And we’re excited to work with the Trump administration to advance those goals."


Meanwhile, Meta also said it plans to take a more personalized approach to political content, so that users who want to see more posts of that kind can do so.

Meta said it will refocus its enforcement efforts to "illegal and high-severity violations."

article / archive
 
Presiona para expandir...
Oh now suddenly is free speech important again?! The woke Meta suits can all go fuck themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Rogue AI dijo:
"We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,"
Presiona para expandir...
Fuck off, Meta scum, you are all just scared of orange man. Cowardly faggots.

If free speech was important to them they would have never implemented the "fact check" shit in the first place. It took nearly a decade to get rid of it and they are only doing so because of changing politics.
 
More Speech and Fewer Mistakes
Meta (archive.ph)
By Joel Kaplan
2025-01-07 12:11:00GMT
(Tried to resize and upload, but kf shit the bed three times, click to view video of Zuck talking)

Meta’s platforms are built to be places where people can express themselves freely. That can be messy. On platforms where billions of people can have a voice, all the good, bad and ugly is on display. But that’s free expression.

In his 2019 speech at Georgetown University, Mark Zuckerberg argued that free expression has been the driving force behind progress in American society and around the world and that inhibiting speech, however well-intentioned the reasons for doing so, often reinforces existing institutions and power structures instead of empowering people. He said: “Some people believe giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing us together. More people across the spectrum believe that achieving the political outcomes they think matter is more important than every person having a voice. I think that’s dangerous.”

In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable. Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do.

We want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression. Today, we’re making some changes to stay true to that ideal.

Ending Third Party Fact Checking Program, Moving to Community Notes
When we launched our independent fact checking program in 2016, we were very clear that we didn’t want to be the arbiters of truth. We made what we thought was the best and most reasonable choice at the time, which was to hand that responsibility over to independent fact checking organizations. The intention of the program was to have these independent experts give people more information about the things they see online, particularly viral hoaxes, so they were able to judge for themselves what they saw and read.

That’s not the way things played out, especially in the United States. Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact check and how. Over time we ended up with too much content being fact checked that people would understand to be legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.

We are now changing this approach. We will end the current third party fact checking program in the United States and instead begin moving to a Community Notes program. We’ve seen this approach work on X – where they empower their community to decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, and people across a diverse range of perspectives decide what sort of context is helpful for other users to see. We think this could be a better way of achieving our original intention of providing people with information about what they’re seeing – and one that’s less prone to bias.
  • Once the program is up and running, Meta won’t write Community Notes or decide which ones show up. They are written and rated by contributing users.
  • Just like they do on X, Community Notes will require agreement between people with a range of perspectives to help prevent biased ratings.
  • We intend to be transparent about how different viewpoints inform the Notes displayed in our apps, and are working on the right way to share this information.
  • People can sign up today (Facebook, Instagram, Threads) for the opportunity to be among the first contributors to this program as it becomes available.
We plan to phase in Community Notes in the US first over the next couple of months, and will continue to improve it over the course of the year. As we make the transition, we will get rid of our fact-checking control, stop demoting fact checked content and, instead of overlaying full screen interstitial warnings you have to click through before you can even see the post, we will use a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is additional information for those who want to see it.

Allowing More Speech
Over time, we have developed complex systems to manage content on our platforms, which are increasingly complicated for us to enforce. As a result, we have been over-enforcing our rules, limiting legitimate political debate and censoring too much trivial content and subjecting too many people to frustrating enforcement actions.

For example, in December 2024, we removed millions of pieces of content every day. While these actions account for less than 1% of content produced every day, we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes (i.e., the content may not have actually violated our policies). This does not account for actions we take to tackle large-scale adversarial spam attacks. We plan to expand our transparency reporting to share numbers on our mistakes on a regular basis so that people can track our progress. As part of that we’ll also include more details on the mistakes we make when enforcing our spam policies.

We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement. We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms. These policy changes may take a few weeks to be fully implemented.

We’re also going to change how we enforce our policies to reduce the kind of mistakes that account for the vast majority of the censorship on our platforms. Up until now, we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that shouldn’t have been. So, we’re going to continue to focus these systems on tackling illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams. For less severe policy violations, we’re going to rely on someone reporting an issue before we take any action. We also demote too much content that our systems predict might violate our standards. We are in the process of getting rid of most of these demotions and requiring greater confidence that the content violates for the rest. And we’re going to tune our systems to require a much higher degree of confidence before a piece of content is taken down. As part of these changes, we will be moving the trust and safety teams that write our content policies and review content out of California to Texas and other US locations.

People are often given the chance to appeal our enforcement decisions and ask us to take another look, but the process can be frustratingly slow and doesn’t always get to the right outcome. We’ve added extra staff to this work and in more cases, we are also now requiring multiple reviewers to reach a determination in order to take something down. We are working on ways to make recovering accounts more straightforward and testing facial recognition technology, and we’ve started using AI large language models (LLMs) to provide a second opinion on some content before we take enforcement actions.

A Personalized Approach to Political Content
Since 2021, we’ve made changes to reduce the amount of civic content people see – posts about elections, politics or social issues – based on the feedback our users gave us that they wanted to see less of this content. But this was a pretty blunt approach. We are going to start phasing this back into Facebook, Instagram and Threads with a more personalized approach so that people who want to see more political content in their feeds can.

We’re continually testing how we deliver personalized experiences and have recently conducted testing around civic content. As a result, we’re going to start treating civic content from people and Pages you follow on Facebook more like any other content in your feed, and we will start ranking and showing you that content based on explicit signals (for example, liking a piece of content) and implicit signals (like viewing posts) that help us predict what’s meaningful to people. We are also going to recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see.

These changes are an attempt to return to the commitment to free expression that Mark Zuckerberg set out in his Georgetown speech. That means being vigilant about the impact our policies and systems are having on people’s ability to make their voices heard, and having the humility to change our approach when we know we’re getting things wrong.
 
The biggest problem for me on Facebook when it comes to freedom of speech is that a lot of harmless words are banned for some stupid reason and you can't post a comment if it includes any of those words.
The one that made me facepalm recently is "fart".
I wanted to say something about fart jokes in movies, couldn't post it.
I had to type "f-a-r-t" in order to be able to post.
Who the fuck put that word on the no-no list and why?
And there are so many random words like it on FB.
 
Count Grishnackh dijo:
At this point, Zuckerjew will do anything to get people to come back to his dead site.
Presiona para expandir...
Isn’t threads like 99% bots?

Facebook is being used, to the best of my knowledge, by actual people still. But nearly every political page is filled to the fucking brim with bots.

And Instagram is like, just OF-lite. The only people on there are the influencers, wannabes and most of all burner accounts
 
Idiotron dijo:
The biggest problem for me on Facebook when it comes to freedom of speech is that a lot of harmless words are banned for some stupid reason and you can't post a comment if it includes any of those words.
The one that made me facepalm recently is "fart".
I wanted to say something about fart jokes in movies, couldn't post it.
I had to type "f-a-r-t" in order to be able to post.
Who the fuck put that word on the no-no list and why?
And there are so many random words like it on FB.
Presiona para expandir...
Probably considered sexual content by the jeet mods.
 
Facebook is a fucking hellsite these days. I have kept an old one active, just have family and friends on it. I only use it for them boomers who refuse/are unable to use anything else. Well, it's mostly Muslims and Indians spamming white women in skimpy clothing. Indians OPENLY lusting after very young white girls. I even reported some of them as its clearly 12 year old girls, but because they are not naked, and the Jews and Indians who run kikebook love raping white girls, it never sticks.

A lot of AI soft-core fetish shit. A few indian pages that AI generate really tall and fat women in sexy military style outfits and claim they are from some nation. IE "Female Soldiers of Norway" and a bunch of tall blonde chubby women. It's very obvious it's AI. They do for almost all countries, but not black ones. Not sure if that's a limitation of the AI, or they are not turned on by black women, or should I say, poorly generated 7 foot obese black women walking slowly whilst explosions go off in the background.

Open scams, and just bullshit lies. Again, strange connection to white women. Quite a few pretend to show white women in revealing outfits from Woodstock, the American festival. Many are AI generated, but some are just modern pictures of white women at some other festival. I spotted one which clearly had a French sign in the background, and it was some French electro dance festival, but they still list it as woodstock 69 (they love that number, they are like me when I was 13, idiots).

This is just because the tide is turning. I don't think Kikeberg gave a shit about left wing causes, I think it was just because they were paying him and were in power, so he went with them. If Hitler rose up and brought an undead stormtrooper army of racist wraiths, wrathists if you will, he would happily (merchant) promote that.

Fuck facebook.
 
I'm sick of Facebook, if I totally dump any site it'll be that. I used to use it to keep up with some old friends/relatives but there's only maybe 2-3 people left. The rest of the feed is soft porn 'comedy' and what really pisses me off is the fake historical/archeology pics. It'll say 'x town in year 1908' and be totally wrong year. Or flat out just AI generated images of dinosaur tracks or whatever, always presented as some 'new incredible discovery'.

Instagram is shit too. Never liked either very much,
 
The W's just keep cumming!
First McDonald's dropping woke and now this.

The Age of the shithlib is over, the time of the Chud has come.

1000000966.png
 
This and having llama.ai be open source are a good start.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo