第2561期:Meta Ends Third-party Fact-Checking System(2)

Meta’s new Community Notes system is similar to the method used by the social media service X. A statement by Meta said changes to this system will have to be made by users, not anyone from the company. Meta 的新社区注释系统与社交媒体服务 X 使用的方法类似。Meta 的一份声明表示，对该系统的更改必须由用户而不是公司的任何人进行。 Meta said, “Just like they do on X, Community Notes will require agreement between people with a range of perspectives to help prevent biased ratings.” The company also invited any users to register to be among the first to try out the system. Meta 说：“就像他们在 X 上所做的那样，社区注释将要求具有不同观点的人们达成一致，以帮助防止有偏见的评级。” 该公司还邀请所有用户注册成为第一批试用该系统的人。The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) criticized Meta’s latest decision. It said the move threatened to "undo nearly a decade of progress."国际事实核查网络（IFCN）批评了 Meta 的最新决定。报告称此举可能会“抵消近十年的进步”。 The group rejected Zuckerberg's claim that the fact-checking program had become a "tool to censor" users. It noted, that "the freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech." 该组织拒绝了扎克伯格关于事实核查程序已成为“审查”用户的工具的说法。它指出，“说出为什么某事不真实的自由也是言论自由。” Milijana Rogač is executive editor of the Serbian fact-checking outlet Istinomer. She told Reuters news agency that she thinks Meta's decision would end up hurting the media industry. Rogač noted that research suggests that many citizens use Meta services as their main source for information. Removing independent fact-checkers “further hinders access to accurate information and news," Rogač said. Milijana Rogač 是塞尔维亚事实核查媒体 Istinomer 的执行编辑。她告诉路透社，她认为 Meta 的决定最终会损害媒体行业。罗加奇指出，研究表明许多公民使用元服务作为他们的主要信息来源。罗加奇表示，取消独立的事实核查人员“进一步阻碍了人们获取准确信息和新闻”。Not a lot of research has been done on how effective Community Notes systems are. But one effort carried out by the University of California and Johns Hopkins University found in 2024 that community notes entered on X for COVID-19 misinformation were accurate. The research showed the notes used both moderate and high-quality sources and were attached to widely read posts.关于社区注释系统的有效性，目前还没有进行很多研究。但加州大学和约翰霍普金斯大学在 2024 年开展的一项工作发现，在 X 上输入的有关 COVID-19 错误信息的社区注释是准确的。研究表明，这些笔记使用了中等和高质量的来源，并附在广泛阅读的帖子中。However, the number of people taking part in that study was small. Also, the effects the system had on users' opinions and behavior is unknown. 然而，参与该研究的人数很少。此外，该系统对用户意见和行为的影响尚不清楚。A 2023 study, from the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, said it was harder for users to agree when they examined content related to political issues.《在线信任与安全杂志》2023 年的一项研究表示，用户在检查与政治问题相关的内容时更难达成一致。