> It very well might be(not that I know about this), but how did Twitter figure this out? As far as I understand, there has been accusations from both sides without proof.
The article answers your question: A prominent fact-checking organization examined the document. You can then question the fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say anything.
Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates?
Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. I’d rather it be courts and some legal process, or even the government rather than some so called “prominent fact checking organisation”.
What is that based on?
> Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth.
They do? That has never been the case, except in dictatorships where the ruler has claimed to be the arbiter, but few actually believe what they say is truth.
Also cite, why there needn’t be any arbiters of truth in a democracy. Maybe you have fully embraced the post truth age.
> You can then question the fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say anything.
If I am a citizen of the said country, is a private fact checking organisation answerable to me?
I am not saying they are lying, but what are the checks and balances on them.
> Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates?
Elected governments shouldn't be, but isn't this why other arms of the government exist, like judiciary. You might question judidicary as well but at least on some level they are bound by their constitutional duties and have to follow the law of the land.
My worry is, in a lot of places in the world, the more we delegate this trust to private entities, th more powerful we make them. They aren't answerable to people of those countries.
Sure, it'd be nice to hold your government accountable. But when your ruler is effectively a tyrant in a government that is laughably calling itself a democracy, I'd rather have twitter provide its own opinion as well. Because at the end of the day you as the reader can still decide to ignore twitter's judgment and just read the document as you could before. It's additional information, not censorship - whereas the government wants to limit information.
Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government. You can ignore twitter's label and still try to hold the Indian government accountable - it's a non sequitur.
Isn't this what elections are there for?
Didn't the ruling party lose a major election just few weeks back? It was widely covered as a victory against them even in international press.
> Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government.
It seems you strongly oppose the current establishment. Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked content against them the same way? It might have been true but it might also have been pressure by the establishment.
It is not like anyone is asking anyone to trust Twitter. My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds.
100%. My stance is that twitter can add its opinion just the same as anyone. The government trying to censor an opinion is what I consider to be the problem. Even if that opinion is "covid is fake" I think people should be allowed to say it because I believe in free speech.
> My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds.
Then you must really hate (almost) every news organization in the world. They literally make it their business to do the very thing you seem to oppose. And as far as I'm concerned they have no more credibility, but that's entirely subjective.
I do too, but this is the exact problem here. Twitter colored that free speech with what they thought was right.
> Then you must really hate (almost) every news organization in the world. They literally make it their business to do the very thing you seem to oppose
Oh, I do hate them. Passing commentary from high pedestals and this false sense of intellectual rigour about their work, pretending they don't have any biases at all.
This is why when they complain about social media companies eating their lunch, I have no sympathy for them. They just hate the fact that the power that was reserved to just them has been just given away to everyone.
All one needs to understand how good most journalism is to just watch coverage of news about a field they understand well.
I think this is where we disagree. Yes, twitter added their own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned why is that worse than anyone adding their own opinion to it? My point is twitter adding their opinion should be as inconsequential as a random person with 6 followers replying to the tweet saying "this is fake news." The only difference is because people give twitter more credibility than a random stranger, which is the fundamental problem of trust in society. No amount of laws can fix this if you truly advocate for free speech. People just need to educate themselves better about what to believe.
There's the platform versus publisher issue, where companies are arguably trying to be both.
And there's the social media companies already using black box algorithms to control their feeds.
So I'd argue with twitter everything already falls under the latter issue, which doesn't mean it's okay just that this is larger issue for any social media company and it's more complicated than just free speech (which is already more nuanced than I've described).
So yes, once twitter begins censoring opinions (and arguably they already do simply by having an algorithm make a feed for you) then they are equally culpable.
As to the corporation vs government issue, yes I'd prefer to hold governments accountable for these things and I agree they should be the entities that handle this. But I see that as an ideal and meanwhile I care more about practical solutions to help us improve where we are and hopefully get there some day.
I don't understand: You asked whether Twitter had any basis for marking it false. I said the basis was (at least in part) a major fact-checking organization. I'm not sure how the above is a response to that. Also, can you provide some basis to your claim? Every lie is partly true; someone who says things that are 'partly true' is a liar.
>> Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates?
> Elected governments shouldn't be, but isn't this why other arms of the government exist, like judiciary.
I strongly disagree: In democracies the judiciary is not at all there to decide truth. It's there to apply the law, which at times involves finding facts of specific situations before it, and then only to a degree sufficient to apply the law. For example, the judiciary is not there to decide the facts of climate change. It is there to apply emissions laws, and to find the facts about what someone may be emitting to the degree needed to apply the law.
In a democracy, it is up to citizens - you and I included - to decide what we believe. There is no authority or mechanism that will save you from that challenging duty. Democracy is a solution, in a sense, to the problem of there being no source of truth. It is governemnt of the people, by the people, for the people.
Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner.
What happened right now was action by a black box on commentary from another black box. We know before wars, stories have been carried by private companies("news" organisations) to set the narrative. They turned out to be false but did they ever answer for them? No.
> It is governemnt of the people, by the people, for the people.
But is this by people? I can choose to not believe in it but do you disagree the vast amount of influence these platforms hold and how they can set the tone of the discourse.
Wasn't this the exact alleged issue in 2016 elections? FB's targeting was used to selectively set narrative.
Are we fine with unchecked use of these all mighty tools?
> Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner.
Generally, the most important aspect of free speech is that you can say what you want about the government; there's no such thing as libeling it. Otherwise, libel is a means of the government restricting speech and harassing opponents - a means commonly used by dictators, including Modi.
The idea of trusting the government to control political speech or be the artbiter of truth seems to ignore the obvious, well-established risks.