Source Criticism - The document suggests Wikipedia's left-leaning bias and derivative nature make it unsuitable as a definitive source for Community Notes [1] - The document advocates for prioritizing actual source material over derivative content [1] Community Notes on X (formerly Twitter) - The document raises concerns about Wikipedia's influence on Community Notes on X [1] - The document proposes a poll to determine whether Wikipedia should be banned as a source for Community Notes on X [1]

X to test using Community Notes to find the posts everyone likes | TechCrunch https://t.co/aIQI8gkAMG ...

X is piloting a program that lets AI chatbots generate Community Notes | TechCrunch https://t.co/kbOuWEaHvI ...

Elon Musk’s X will start to publish Community Notes written by AI agents, a move to increase the speed of the social network’s fact-checking product and expand it to reach more people https://t.co/BZlQaiLdMV ...

RT Community Notes (@CommunityNotes)New update to keep proposed note quality high: We’ve introduced a limit to the number of notes a contributor can write on the same account in a short time period, based on how helpful people have found their past notes on that account.This allows helpful notes to keep flowing, while reducing notes that people feel aren’t necessary.Thanks to our contributors for shaping this update.Details: https://t.co/Db6QF0KqzY ...

Core Viewpoint - Meta's Community Notes program aims to enhance fact-checking and curb misinformation while promoting free expression, building on lessons learned from X's (formerly Twitter) similar initiative [1][19]. Group 1: Program Overview - Meta has over 3.35 billion combined monthly active users across its platforms [1]. - The Community Notes program is currently in a waitlist phase for Canadian users, with no official launch date announced [2]. - The initiative was first launched in the United States and is set to expand globally [3]. Group 2: Learning from X's Experience - Meta has the opportunity to improve upon X's Community Notes by addressing algorithmic biases and enhancing features based on four years of evolution [4]. - X's Community Notes, initially known as Birdwatch, aimed to broaden voices in fact-checking and curb misinformation through community-driven moderation [5]. - Research indicates that crowdsourcing can effectively identify misleading content [6]. Group 3: Functionality and Impact - On X, users contribute context to posts and can rate contributions, with notes gaining visibility based on diverse user support [7]. - Preliminary research suggests that Community Notes positively impacts misinformation, with authors often retracting misleading posts when notes are attached [10]. - Transparency is a notable strength of X's program, allowing public access to data and algorithms [11]. Group 4: Challenges and Limitations - X's Community Notes faces challenges such as low user popularity and the risk of manipulation by coordinated groups [13]. - The consensus-based approach has resulted in less than 9% of submitted notes reaching the general audience, indicating a lack of visibility for many contributions [14]. - The complexity of enforcing consensus among diverse viewpoints across different countries poses additional challenges [15]. Group 5: Responsibility and Legal Concerns - There is a risk that Community Notes may serve as a smokescreen for platforms to shift responsibility away from active misinformation management [16]. - Legal frameworks may complicate the anonymity of contributors, especially if governments demand access to identities [17]. - The lack of enforcement actions based on Community Notes outcomes weakens the program's effectiveness [18]. Group 6: Future Outlook - Meta's success with Community Notes will depend on continuous experimentation, improvement, and prioritizing transparency to rebuild public trust [19]. - Regulators play a crucial role in holding platforms accountable and ensuring fair and unbiased algorithms [20].

Core Viewpoint - Meta's independent oversight board criticized the company for hastily removing its fact-checking policy, urging an assessment of potential adverse effects [1][6][10] Group 1: Oversight Board's Rulings - The board upheld some of Meta's decisions to keep controversial content while ordering the removal of posts containing racist slurs [2][7] - The board issued 17 recommendations for improving enforcement of bullying and harassment policies and clarifying banned ideologies [9][10] Group 2: Changes in Content Moderation - Meta replaced its fact-checking policies with a "Community Notes" model, similar to the approach used by Elon Musk's platform X [6][7] - The rule change allowed derogatory references to marginalized groups, focusing instead on detecting terrorism, child exploitation, and fraud [7][10] Group 3: Relationship with Political Figures - Mark Zuckerberg sought to align with the incoming Trump administration, dining with Trump and donating $1 million to his inaugural fund [3][12] - Zuckerberg's actions reflect a strategy to gain favor with political leadership, which has influenced Meta's content moderation policies [2][3] Group 4: Financial Commitment to Oversight Board - Meta has committed to funding the oversight board through 2027, allocating at least $35 million annually over the next three years [12][13]

Core Viewpoint - Meta's decision to end its US fact-checking program has raised significant concerns regarding the potential increase in misinformation and its implications for human rights [2][4]. Group 1: Policy Changes and Reactions - Meta announced a policy shift to replace third-party fact-checkers with a community-based moderation tool called "Community Notes," which has been criticized for its effectiveness [5][6]. - The Meta Oversight Board criticized the announcement as being made "hastily" and emphasized the need for a balance between free expression and safety from harm [3][4]. - Analysts suggest that the policy change may have been influenced by political pressures, particularly from then US President-elect Donald Trump [3]. Group 2: Recommendations and Concerns - The Oversight Board issued 17 recommendations for Meta, urging the company to evaluate the effectiveness of Community Notes compared to traditional fact-checking methods, especially in contexts where misinformation poses public safety risks [4]. - Experts have expressed skepticism about relying on crowd-sourced moderation, likening it to an abdication of social responsibility by Meta [6][8]. - The board's recommendations are not binding, meaning Meta is not obligated to implement them despite promising to honor rulings on appeals regarding content moderation [8].

Meta Platforms (META) is beginning to test its previously announced Community Notes from today. The program replaces its third-party fact-checking program in the United States to promote more free speech across its platforms, Facebook, Instagram and Threads. META’s decision to loosen control over content monitoring is expected to boost user engagement. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the daily active user base continued to grow across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp on a year-over-year basis, both globally ...

Meta's upcoming Community Notes feature for monitoring misinformation through crowdsourcing will use some technology developed by Elon Musk's X for its similar service.On Thursday, Meta revealed in a blog post more details of its new content moderation tool, and said it incorporates the same open-source algorithm that powers X's Community Notes. Meta said that over time it plans to modify the algorithm to better serve its Facebook, Instagram and Threads apps."As X's algorithm and program information is open ...