|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:25:19 I'm on a mailing list for the official ActivityPub specification and everyone is super keen on this idea that ActivityPub is going to start supporting "facts", ie you either agree with the "truth" or you're wrong. As much as I can't stand the disinformation campaigns, they're not at all taking seriously the idea that demanding everyone have the same "truth" is not only group-think, but far more dangerous. It's a degradation of the very foundation of fundamental liberal ideas of difference. The idea that all must adhere to the official "Truth" is a tenement of fascism. And who will control truth? Why, the same people who control moderation of course, meaning that if you're part of a marginalized group within the network then watch out, because they're coming for you, and now they have the "truth" on their side. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:32:53 @serge WTF 🤬 this is concerning to put it mildly. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:38:19 They see it as anti-disinformation and from what I've seen, there's ether no push-back, or any criticism is dismissed. I tried talking with @evanprodromou personally but that didn't seem to go anywhere, as I think he thinks my concern is exclusively about Jews, since I used the way that Jews are treated on this network as an example of the problem. But fundamentally the idea that we must all adhere to the same "truth" is illiberal, and historically has been associated with fascism. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:41:56 @serge @outofeasthofen Serge, have you used any other social networks where fact-checking with professional services takes place? Or the community notes on Twitter? You seem to be arguing against a very abstract idea of fact-checking, based on identifying what truth is, which I don't think reflects the state of the practice. Maybe you could do some research on how these systems work, so you would have a better idea of what the discussion is about? |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:45:31 @serge For certain. People are affected differently by what is going on right now. So there is a different level of being subject to the developments around the globe. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:34:45 @serge Hey, Serge. Fact-checking is not about determining what's "true". It's about determining what is true according to someone. For example, if Snopes.com fact-checks a post, and gives a true/mostly true/mostly false/false label to it, you know that it's mostly true *according to Snopes*. You get to decide if you trust and agree with that source. Fact-checking on social networks is a well-understood problem. The IFCN has a code of acceptable behaviour. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:35:39 @serge I think an important question would be, could I as an individual subscribe to fact-checking that my instance doesn't use? I think that'd be extremely valuable. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:39:39 @serge It'd be great to have your participation in the email list as well as on the Fediverse. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:33:44 @serge We are very early in this process. We have not even started a task force to start investigating this question. The next step in the process would be to launch a task force, and then start capturing user stories about fact-checking. User stories like, "There is no single truth" would be really good to get in there! |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:50:33 The problem isn't the idea of a fact checking service. The idea is neutral. The problem is that if you've spent any amount of time on this network as a marginalized person within the network, you will find that the social pressures for conformity are strong, and that because the instance is the core focal point of community, the idea of collective identity (which can be very goo) is also married with the idea of collective responsibility and exclusion. In other words "Have the right Truth, or you must be anti-Truth". And you've yet to acknowledge this side effect in any communications. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:38:23 @serge So, I'd appreciate from here on out if we keep our conversation public, since you're saying that I did not acknowledge your concerns or respond to your messages, which is unfair. I'm looking at our email thread, which has multiple multi-paragraph messages, and it seems to me that I've been responsive on the topic. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:46:59 In the public discourse you've yet to say "Yes this is a problem". You dance around it. You say it's early in the process, it's opt-in, etc. but I haven't seen you say a word about the fundamental issue, and the private dialog mirrors that. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:50:59 @serge There is no such thing as a single base level of truth, especially with social and political issues, and an ActivityPub extension that tried to establish that single base level of truth would be fundamentally flawed. Does that acknowledge your concern? |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:56:42 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:04:02 @serge Yes, if an ActivityPub extension pretended to establish a base level of truth that applied to everyone, it would be harmful to marginalized people. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:05:04 That's all I've been looking for. "We need to be careful because this can cause harm" |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:05:48 @serge Absolutely. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:12:52 You wanted thus public, so I've removed the user's name from the screenshot. These are the complaints about one of our users. In one post he said he thinks it's a terrible tragedy but doesn't think it rises to the level of genocide. But the reports are about almost everything they've said. Now see how a fact checking system could make things worse? What if it was run by the right and not the left, and we saw shit about lGBTQ+ people, or the kind of "Report your coworker for DEI" stuff that's going around the US government right now. I agree facts are important, but we must be thoughtful about what it means to a social network. Medien: 1 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:26:07 That is a frequent problem of the commercial platforms. Fact-checking is often very biased and don't take everything into account. It's frequently used to silence the marginalized and the political opponent. As we know, the UN are very biased against Israel. Far-right-groups use it to silence their opponents for calling their actions to what they are. Or greedy people, who live well by the current wellfare-system want to silence critics. They want to downplay the concerns of their (potential) clients and dependents. And so on. Fact-checking follows the money and the power too often. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:30:19 @serge No, I don't see how a fact-checking system would make all the reports worse. I am not sure you understand the functionality we're talking about. I did a couple of diagrams to help out. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 21:33:59 @serge Here's a rough wireframe of a current set of replies on a controversial post. The original poster's text is show first, and then the comments and replies are grouped together. It's a crude representation, but I want to highlight that a) people can comment and argue about the contents and b) fact checking by authoritative organizations is lost in the noise of other replies. Medien: 1 |
|
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! |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:48:25 @serge Again, nobody is trying to establish a ground truth -- one absolute truth that everyone agrees on. We are trying to find a way that established fact-checking services could provide those services across the Fediverse. There are many such services worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fact-checking_websites |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:55:39 Saying "Lots of services exist" doesn't acknowledge the danger. This kind of dogmatic refusal to acknowledge the very real concerns goes hand in hand with the proposal itself. Instead, you've shifted the topic, you've talked about how it's opt in (which is about as true as saying prayer in school i opt-in), and that it's early in the process. Nowhere I've seen have you said "I see how this could harm marginalized people." |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:35:07 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:35:13 @serge this is the most populist, anti-scientific post I’ve read on here so far. - so much of the damage done by trump and the anti-vax crowd was defended by exactly these arguments. …and I mean _your_ post, not the one you are reacting to. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:36:00 @serge I agree. Systems should be designed to encourage deeper, critical thinking and discussion rather than blanket "this is right, that is wrong." The latter can make things like particular wording or semantics tricky. Or even what information is excluded, rather than what is included. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 16:45:37 @serge ActivityTruth |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:01:09 @serge i dunno if protocols should tackle abstract things like the truth, good or evil, but concrete things like an attachment, a property of an object, right? |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:04:25 Can you say more? |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:07:13 @serge i really dunno, just asking |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 17:52:23 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 18:24:22 @evan @serge but a concrete thing like a photo or a note on a photo will still be a photo or a note on a photo, over time. The thing is that what you state as a fact today, is a result of a consensus that may be different tomorrow. It's like trying to build enshittification-free social network. It's impossible because we humans carry our miseries wherever we go, so what protocols and platforms should focus on, imho, is in building good administration tools and solutions for concrete and tangible things and leave the complex ones to users, and i mean that things that require skills beyond a mere sysadmin (like tell is something is a fact or not), to humans. Which humans? i dunno, time will tell. The real struggle in the fediverse and decentralized social media lies on finding good administrators and moderators that communities will eventually choose. I think. Build a fact-thing in a protocol, and it'll bite you in the future, full stop. |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 22:34:27 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 23:58:22 |
|
Föderation EN Fr 24.01.2025 01:08:00 |
|
Föderation EN Fr 24.01.2025 01:55:18 |
|
Föderation EN Fr 24.01.2025 03:56:16 |
|
Föderation EN Fr 24.01.2025 03:58:22 |
|
Föderation EN Fr 24.01.2025 04:31:07 |
|
Föderation EN Do 23.01.2025 23:51:06 @serge I hit ⭐ but I really mean 😬 |
|
Föderation EN Sa 25.01.2025 21:48:52 @serge this sounds like such a foolish idea and removes much of the “social” component of social networking by preventing discussion and debate from even occurring. |
|
Föderation EN Sa 25.01.2025 21:53:47 There are very much reasons to be concerned about disinformation campaigns, but I believe strongly that the approach being discussed is not only the wrong one, but is done without the necessary thought and care, which is illustrated in this thread. |
