export_ofoct.com

[00:00.41] Facebook parent company Meta recently announced changes to the way it tries to identify misinformation and harmful material published on its social media services.

[00:18.47] Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg explained in a video that the company had decided to make the changes because the old system had produced “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

[00:37.06] Zuckerberg said the moderation system Meta had built needed to be “complex” to examine huge amounts of content in search of material that violated company policies.

[00:54.60] However, he noted the problem with such systems is they can make a lot of errors.

[01:02.83] The Meta chief added about such systems, “Even if they accidentally censor just one percent of posts, that’s millions of people.”

[01:16.11] So, he said the company had decided to move to a new system centered on “reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression.”

[01:32.05] The new method turns over content moderation duties to a “Community Notes” system.

[01:40.81] The company said this system aims to “empower the community” to decide whether content is acceptable or needs further examination.

[01:53.29] The changes will be effective for Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and Threads services.

[02:02.06] Meta said the new system would become available first to U.S. users in the coming months.

[02:10.83] Meta’s former moderation system involved the use of independent, third-party fact-checking organizations.

[02:21.99] Many of these were large media companies or news agencies.

[02:28.10] The efforts included digital tools as well as human workers to fact-check content and identify false, inappropriate or harmful material.

[02:42.17] Meta said the third-party moderation method ended up identifying too much information for fact-checking.

[02:52.53] After closer examination, a lot of content should have been considered “legitimate political speech and debate.”

[03:03.16] Another problem, the company said, was that the decisions made by content moderators could be affected by their personal beliefs, opinions and biases.

[03:18.03] One result was that “a program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.”