> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented.

It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.

Or maybe such people have far better things to do than fact check concern trolls and paid propagandists.

Strong disagree. This is a very naive understanding of the situation. "Fact-checking" by users is just more of the kind of shouting back and forth that these social networks are already full of. That's why a third-party fact checks are important.

It's clear that the pressure comes now from the other side of the spectrum. Zuck already put Trumpists at various key positions.

> I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented.

It's a good point. They're also going to push more political contents, which should increase engagement (eventually frustrating users and advertisers?)

Either way, it's pretty clear that the company works with the power in place, which is extremely concerning (whether you're left or right leaning, and even more if you're not American).

I didn't think it was any secret that Meta largely complies with US gov't instructions on what to suppress. It's called jawboning[1]

[1] https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/what-jawboning-and-do...

If you assume they are immune to politics (not true but let's go with it), this is the most obvious reason.

They've seen X hasn't taken that much heat for Community Notes and they're like "wow we can cut a line item".

The real problem is, Facebook is not X. 90% of the content on Facebook is not public.

You can't Fact Check or Community Note the private groups sharing blatantly false content, until it spills out via a re-share.

So Facebook will remain a breeding ground of conspiracy, pushed there by the echo chamber and Nazi-bar effects.

I don't know if I'd call it a certain win for Meta long term, but it might well be if they play it right. Presumably they're banking on things being fairly siloed anyway, so political tirades in one bubble won't push users in another bubble off the platform. If they have good ways for people to ignore others, maybe they can have the cake and eat it, unlike Twitter.

Like Twitter, the network effect will retain people, and unlike Twitter, Facebook is a much deeper, more integrated service such that people can't just jump across to a work-alike.

A CEO who can keep his mouth shut is also a pretty big plus for them. They skated away from bring involved with a genocide without too many issues, so same ethical revulsion people have against Musk seems to be much less focused.

The problem with CN right now, though, is that Musk appears to block it on most of his posts, and/or right-wing moderators downvote the notes so they don't appear or disappear.

I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content moderators judge content subjectively, labeling perfect discussions as misinformation, hate speech, and etc. That's where the censorship starts.