Though some may dislike it, I actually am glad that Twitter under Elon Musk is fact checking both sides.
https://twitter.com/birdwatch/status/1578004575990202370?s=4...
I wonder if it would have seen the light of day if they waited until after the acquisition though.
The worst part of this acquisition is the groan-worthy expansion of Elon worship in public discourse.
What Elon’s businesses are trying to accomplish is not essential to the species. The species is not essential.
The masses are tired of being squeezed to produce as the output and comfort is squandered and monopolized.
That said, the public has to accept as well the planet is finite. Society does not just have a crony capitalism problem. The public, rich or poor, politician or citizen, has a consumption syndrome and conviction to fuck the future in service of our demand for novel experiences.
Applying the awareness of infinitely big small numbers to the economy has lifted people up materially for sure. But the literal resources are not there for everyone to have the buying power of a CEO. At the same time, no theory of science I know of says Musk and co specifically must be enabled.
Log out of Twitter if you have one, find an Elon tweet, and start reading the tens of thousands of comments.
Bonus, if you have a well-curated account: log back in and read what comments automatically get pushed to the top. For me, it's a ton of accounts I follow being critical of Elon's takes on stuff.
That's like trying to figure out what society thinks of me by reading my birthday cards.
The English language one worships authority, the German language side is mostly small children who are slightly left wing. That certainly falls under "somewhat"diverse IMO, which is a pretty low bar.
Besides, if the handling were really equivalent to the trump whitehouse people would be alleging that the tweet's removal violated the law because it removed the 1A protected 'fact check' text and/or violated records retention laws (both of which were argued WRT Trump). :)
This thread was started by an "As far as I know," and I'm not sure it's one of those things that could be definitely proven either way.
But I guess ignoring that and implying that some shadow cabal at Twitter turned off the fact checking for Biden, then Elon turned it back on, but claimed to not have not turned it on, despite things like that literally being his motivation to buy the site... is more exciting?
The Trump fact checks were a different feature that had somewhat similar results. Those were applied by the centralized Twitter team, this one is crowdsourced, and applies to lots of different accounts, not just this highly-visible one.
The other possibility being the feature as it was applied to the Biden tweet did not exist during the Trump administration, which I posted in the original comment.
More likely it's not a lie because the POTUS actually believes it's true. It's not a lie if you sincerely believe it right?
Like how he keeps saying that gas was $5/gallon when he took office [1] (it was $2.39/gallon).
Or how he claims that his own son died in Iraq [2] (he died in the USA).
Though the best example would be the tale of Cornpop [3], in which a young Biden, working as a life guard at a city pool, tangles with a razor armed thug, himself with just his wits and a steel chain. It's entirely possible he thinks this actually happened.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/28/politics/fact-check-biden-gas...
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/us/politics/biden-ukraine...
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/16/corn-pop-joe...
It was the solid truth.
That's why the fact-check was to "provide context".
> A statement intended to deceive, even if literally true.
… the tweet is factual only to the extent required to deceive the reader. As the increase is a CPI adjustment, by definition real benefits aren't moving. Then there's the entirety of the problems that are being caused by the worst inflation of my life … that's to be chalked up to the Biden admin's "leadership"?
The context changes the entire tone of the tweet, because it was a lie. The White House deleted it because they got caught in a lie.
The Biden administration should be holding itself to higher standards than this.
Worse, they got caught in a truth
Then you're associating the new leader of a corporation with windfalls from previous administrations.
See the problem there?