> get hit by Community Notes

How does that work? can anyone post a "community note", or by what process is that decided?

Some related HN discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25906672

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25908439

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33478845

Thanks - it sounds from https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci... (via your first link) that they have a rating system whereby community members get to vote on which notes they think are true (a.k.a. which ones they like), and some sort of reputation system to compensate for the weaknesses of relying solely on votes. Did they publish the details of these systems?

Edit: this, from https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/about/introducti... (via your third link) is interesting:

Community Notes doesn't work by majority rules. To identify notes that are helpful to a wide range of people, notes require agreement between contributors who have sometimes disagreed in their past ratings. This helps prevent one-sided ratings.

Then they link to https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/contributing/div..., which expands on that. It seems they're basically trying to control for ideological perspective, i.e. to identify signal that doesn't just boil down to "I like / agree with this". I've often wondered if something like that could work.

>Did they publish the details of these systems?

I didn't look into the details myself, but there is a 24-page paper linked from this page:

>Details of our methodology and past findings can be found in our paper.

https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/g...

https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/blob/main/birdwatc...

Thanks! But I didn't find a clear description there of how this works. What elevates an ordinary comment to a "community note" and what determines whether a "community note" stays up as a sort of verdict on the original post? This seems like a hard thing to get right at scale. If you rely on voting (i.e. likes or whatever), you'll just end up with a parallel comment system, no more authoritative than the original one. So there must be some other process deciding which proposed notes get this special status.

(Perhaps I should add: yes, I'm being lazy; no, I'm not being critical - I just want someone to explain this to me so I don't have to work to find out.)

Be a verified (by phone number, no need to pay) twitter user. Apply to be a Community notes contributor. Wait. If accepted, you start with 0 points. Twitter will start to show you proposed (as opposed to published) community notes. You can vote yes / no. If a note you voted yes (or no) will get enough other yes (no) votes to get published (rejected), you will get 1 point. If you voted "wrong", you will lose a point. After you have a certain number of points (I think 5), you can also write proposed notes yourself, not just vote. If your note gets rejected, you lose 5 points.

But twitter is not only counting the yes / no votes. They need people who have voted differently on some previous notes, to agree in their votes on this note, before their algorithm makes the decision to publish or reject the note.

A lot of proposed notes will never get enough votes to be decidedly published or rejected, so they will linger in the "proposed" stage forever.

Thank you! That's clear and interesting.

Musk has criticised Community Notes a few times for calling him out.

More often he has expressed how well it works and how great it is.

He praised it many times, but just a few weeks ago was complaining when he posted BS and community notes essentially called him out. In any case, I think it's a good feature and hope it doesn't go away.