|
· Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:36:05 @serge Here's a common UI for fact-checking. It doesn't have to be the only UI available; it's just one that's commonly used. Fact checks are separated from the replies into their own section of the page, and additional information about how the conclusions were reached, and about the credibility of the fact checker are available. Also note that there's some curation by the receiver, their server, or their client, so one fact check is shown and the other isn't. Medien: 1 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:38:55 @serge The benefits here are that the review by a trusted entity is highlighted and shown right next to the original content. It's also separated from the comments or from quote posts. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:43:25 @serge So, one vector of harm is if the recipient uses an untrustworthy or biased fact checking service. The UI gives extra focus to the fact checking service, so it would elevate those biased opinions. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:44:50 @serge another potential vector, and I think this is what you're talking about, is that if a post gets this kind of fact check labelling, the original poster will be subject to increased pressure, including harassing comments and reports on their account. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:51:40 @serge For the first issue, I think the work of IFCN and others is helpful. Having qualified fact-checkers that follow industry norms and that are reviewed by peers gives much less of a chance of abusive and misleading fact check annotations. Of course, in a federated system there's no way to *make* people use those services instead of biased and untrustworthy ones, but I think it's possible to use the brands and organizations as a quick filter. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:53:55 @serge For the second, I'm not sure it's true. You're showing examples of reports made right now; I am not convinced that the volume will significantly increase with a fact-checking feature. It would be good to get some analysis from the field. I'll try and review it! |
