I don't understand your point at all. Community Notes on E(x) has been ineffective, because ultimately the point of moderation is to delete posts which aren't true so they receive no reach and spread no disinformation.
Not to turn them into a public debate which might as well continue in the posts themselves.
Meta's political history has consistently been shady. Meta patented behavioural targeting technology in 2012 and was fined $5bn for its "accidental" links to anti-democratic election-fixers Cambridge Analytica/SCL, who have ties to far-right oligarchs in the US and the UK.
If you're looking for an ideological position, look there. The historical record is absolutely clear.
And then there are comments from Meta insiders, who - perhaps - have a clearer picture of what's going on than outsiders do.
As for malpractice, consider the recent AI rollout and rollback. It was an absolute fiasco for all kinds of reasons, PR and technical, not least of which was the way the bots themselves turned on the company.
Threads has already had a mini-exodus because of slanted moderation.
Meta is simply not a trustworthy company. So "Oh, let's scrap our moderation and do community notes" is hardly an isolated slip-up on an otherwise unblemished record of noble public service.
> ultimately the point of moderation is to delete posts which aren't true so they receive no reach and spread no disinformation.
That assumes that the correct amount of disinformation is zero, personally I wish to maintain my right to be wrong, and my right to tell others of my wrong ideas, and I hope they maintain the right to tell me I'm full of it.
Your position on censorship, moderation, as you call it, is your opinion, and your opinion only, and it is at odds with the position of X, and now Meta, who are taking the position that the point of moderation is to respect everyone's right to speech, while making it very obvious to those that care, that the speech may be less than truthful. Essentially everyone gets to speak, and everyone gets to make up their own mind. What a concept!
I also maintain a position of truth dies in the dark, and lies die in the light.
Most people aren't stupid, community notes breaks the echo chamber and provides a counterpoint.
That debate of free ideas has been working pretty well so far. So much so that we can usually tell who the bad guys are by how much the create darkness; how much they take on the role of arbiters of truth, how much they silence critics, think Soviet Russia, or North Korea for some good examples.
Not to turn them into a public debate which might as well continue in the posts themselves.
Meta's political history has consistently been shady. Meta patented behavioural targeting technology in 2012 and was fined $5bn for its "accidental" links to anti-democratic election-fixers Cambridge Analytica/SCL, who have ties to far-right oligarchs in the US and the UK.
If you're looking for an ideological position, look there. The historical record is absolutely clear.
And then there are comments from Meta insiders, who - perhaps - have a clearer picture of what's going on than outsiders do.
As for malpractice, consider the recent AI rollout and rollback. It was an absolute fiasco for all kinds of reasons, PR and technical, not least of which was the way the bots themselves turned on the company.
Threads has already had a mini-exodus because of slanted moderation.
Meta is simply not a trustworthy company. So "Oh, let's scrap our moderation and do community notes" is hardly an isolated slip-up on an otherwise unblemished record of noble public service.
https://fortune.com/2025/01/04/meta-ai-accounts-bots-false-r...
https://www.platformer.news/meta-fact-checking-free-speech-s...