Opaque assertions of authority are a dark pattern. Getting someone's "context" stuck on your words when it's just another person's opinion, but your voice has an origin and their voice is given an authoritative appearance without origin feels bad. It tricks people into being more trusting than they should.
Q: Agreed upon by whom?
I'm reminded of this quotation:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
which The Big Short (2015) says is Twain but I gather probably isn't.
i've already seen some birdwatch "fact checks" that were much more misleading than the thing they were "fact checking"
The way it's implemented, the opinion is practically anonymous, with no one accountable for it, but given a false cover of authority.
If the context is an article by someone, I don't mind if the algorithm somehow finds the relevant twit by the relevant journalist who authored that article, and tends to show them together, as equals. That's fine by me.
I disagree with the UI choice of giving visual significance to a specific opinion.
> true but grossly misleading statement said specifically to capitalize on the wrong conclusion people will make about it.
> - Every Politician
Another way would letting fact checking by an extension of the report feature where you can say, “woah this needs some context” and write a reply or link to your article discussing the issue. And the Twitter moderators just decide whether to show it in the privileged spot with attribution. Bonus if the moderators can highlight a person’s credentials if they happen to be an expert in the topic or directly related to the events.