I'm way more in favor a of a system that employs the userbase to "fact check" than whatever busybody connected to a partisan "fact checker" at twitter doing it manually and adding their own particular bias.
The change seems to be that it has now rolled out on all accounts rather than just Red accounts, and now there is drama.
What do you mean by this? There was one high profile incident with the white house, but I am struggling to believe that’s when the controversy started.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/birdwatch?utm_source=post-emai...
> All we know for sure is last week there were notable embarrassing contextualizations of right-wing propaganda, and no notable embarrassing contextualizations of left-wing propaganda. Now, there are many examples.
Still not sure where you’re getting this idea that there is suddenly an outcry because people across the aisle are just now being fact checked. Do you have any data on how often it was only Republicans vs. Democrats and how that shifted? Do you have any data on whether or not there’s been an uptick in bad information posted by Democrats? I just think you’re missing a lot of critical context here and your inferences are not really earned.
Twitter's staff leanings (at least previously) aren't a secret: https://files.catbox.moe/3mvjhv.jpg With the userbase being the "fact checkers" there's at least a chance of balance, if not unbiased research. With their pre-Musk staff there was approximately a 1.3% chance of balance if political donations are any measure.
We'll see once changes are made to the platform itself.
To be clear, I'm more anti-authoritarian than a fan of either big party. If twitter's employees were 97% Republican donating I'd be saying the exact same thing.
Assuming we see anything of substance beyond his chest pounding about it and some loud firings. He explicitly said yesterday that he has not changed twitter’s content moderation policies to help advertisers feel better. Which isn’t surprising at all. The dude is outrageous and full of hot air, but he isn’t stupid. He knows that Twitter can’t function if there isn’t some moderation in place, and he knows it was a long road to get where they are now.
He can nitpick all he wants, but I am willing to gamble that 99% of the current policies will be in place a year from now and nothing substantive will change, which he’ll try to mask with a few more high profile stunts or proclamations.
Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-elon-musk-timeline-musk-sa...
To make it work, we need non-profit social media network. But one can dream, that is not going to happen.
Their editor culture is also pretty disciplined. I don’t think we have any reason to believe Twitter users are up to the task.
I am strongly in favor of giving birdwatch a chance and maybe making a few adjustments along the way because we need something better than hack journalists and something more than wikipedia articles.
I'm sure that there will be ways to game it. But it does not appear to be being gamed at the moment.
If you're talking about a forum or somewhere that the casually interested internet riff raff won't dominate the bar moves higher.
That said, I'd rather have internet idiots do group fact checking than have established institutions be in charge of it.