Meta终止第三方事实核查，新增“社区注释”系统
📖 逐句对照翻译
Facebook parent company Meta recently announced changes to the way it tries to identify misinformation and harmful material published on its social media services.
脸书母公司Meta最近宣布，将改变识别其社交媒体服务上发布的虚假信息和有害内容的方式。
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.”
Meta首席执行官马克·扎克伯格在一段视频中解释说，公司决定做出这些改变，是因为旧系统产生了“太多错误和太多审查”。
Issues with Meta moderation
Meta审核问题
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.
扎克伯格表示，Meta建立的审核系统必须“复杂”，才能检查海量内容，以寻找违反公司政策的材料。
However, he noted the problem with such systems is they can make a lot of errors.
然而，他指出这类系统的问题在于它们可能会犯很多错误。
The Meta chief added about such systems, “Even if they accidentally censor just one percent of posts, that’s millions of people.”
Meta首席执行官还补充道，对于这类系统，“即使它们不小心仅审查了1%的帖子，那也涉及到数百万人。”
So, he said the company had decided to move to a new system centered on “reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression.”
所以，他说公司已决定转向一个新体系，其核心是“减少错误、简化政策，并恢复自由表达”。
“Community Notes” system
“社区笔记”系统
The new method turns over content moderation duties to a “Community Notes” system.
新方法将内容审核职责转交给了“社区笔记”系统。
The company said this system aims to “empower the community” to decide whether content is acceptable or needs further examination.
该公司表示，这一系统旨在“赋能社区”，让其决定内容是应被接受还是需要进一步审查。
The changes will be effective for Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and Threads services.
这些变更将对Meta的Facebook、Instagram和Threads服务生效。
Meta said the new system would become available first to U.S. users in the coming months.
Meta表示，这一新系统将在未来几个月内首先向美国用户开放。
Meta’s former moderation system involved the use of independent, third-party fact-checking organizations.
Meta此前的审核系统涉及使用独立的第三方事实核查机构。
Many of these were large media companies or news agencies.
其中许多是大型媒体公司或新闻机构。
The efforts included digital tools as well as human workers to fact-check content and identify false, inappropriate or harmful material.
这些努力包括利用数字工具和人工人员对内容进行事实核查，并识别虚假、不当或有害的材料。
Meta said the third-party moderation method ended up identifying too much information for fact-checking.
Meta表示，第三方审核方法最终识别出过多信息，不利于事实核查。
After closer examination, a lot of content should have been considered “legitimate political speech and debate.”
经过更仔细的审查，许多内容本应被视为“合法的政治言论和辩论”。
Another problem, the company said, was that the decisions made by content moderators could be affected by their personal beliefs, opinions and biases.
该公司表示，另一个问题是内容审核员的决策可能会受到其个人信仰、观点和偏见的影响。
One result was that “a program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.”
一个结果是，“原本旨在提供信息的项目往往变成了审查工具。”
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新的“社区注释”系统与社交媒体服务X所采用的方法类似。Meta的一份声明称，对这一系统的修改必须由用户进行，而不是公司任何人。
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.”
Meta表示：“就像在X平台上一样，‘社区笔记’功能将要求持有不同观点的人达成一致，以帮助防止出现有偏见的评分。”
The company also invited any users to register to be among the first to try out the system.
该公司还邀请所有用户注册，以便率先体验该系统。
How did fact-checkers react to Meta's change?
事实核查人员对Meta的这一变化有何反应？
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) criticized Meta’s latest decision.
国际事实核查网络（IFCN）批评了Meta的最新决定。
It said the move threatened to "undo nearly a decade of progress."
声明称，此举可能会“使近十年的进步付诸东流”。
The group rejected Zuckerberg's claim that the fact-checking program had become a "tool to censor" users.
该组织驳斥了扎克伯格关于事实核查项目已成为“审查”用户工具的说法。
It noted, that "the freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech."
它指出，“说出某事为何不实的自由也是言论自由。”
Milijana Rogač is executive editor of the Serbian fact-checking outlet Istinomer.
米利雅娜·罗加奇是塞尔维亚事实核查媒体Istinomer的执行编辑。
She told Reuters news agency that she thinks Meta's decision would end up hurting the media industry.
她告诉路透社，她认为Meta的决定最终会损害媒体行业。
Rogač noted that research suggests that many citizens use Meta services as their main source for information.
罗加奇指出，研究表明许多公民将Meta服务作为他们获取信息的主要来源。
Removing independent fact-checkers “further hinders access to accurate information and news," Rogač said.
Rogač表示，移除独立的事实核查机构“进一步阻碍了人们获取准确信息和新闻的途径”。
How effective are Community Notes?
社区注释的效果如何？
Not a lot of research has been done on how effective Community Notes systems are.
关于社区笔记系统有效性的研究并不多。
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.
但加州大学和约翰斯·霍普金斯大学在2024年开展的一项研究发现，X平台上针对COVID-19错误信息添加的社区注释是准确的。
The research showed the notes used both moderate and high-quality sources and were attached to widely read posts.
研究表明，这些注释既引用了中等质量也引用了高质量的来源，并且附在阅读量广的帖子上。
However, the number of people taking part in that study was small.
然而，参与该研究的人数很少。
Also, the effects the system had on users' opinions and behavior is unknown.
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年的一项研究指出，用户在审视与政治议题相关的内容时，更难达成一致意见。
I’m Bryan Lynn.
我是布莱恩·林恩。
Bryan Lynn wrote this story, based on reports from Meta, The Associated Press and Reuters.
布莱恩·林恩根据Meta、美联社和路透社的报道撰写了这个故事。
