Just to put it in a different perspective, can you imagine using an IRC channel where a bot automatically applied fact checks to your statements? Doubt that would've gone over well.
That would have prevented a lot of flame wars
Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
131–140 of 156 posts
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#132The Ministry of Truth
Don't forget the 'Department of Independent and Selective Fact Checkers.' Who checks the fact checkers?
You. I don't get this argument. I was taught how to vet sources in high school. Did everyone play hooky that day? Based on the national soap opera, I guess so.
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is historically inaccurate. The issue of forums becoming hateful echo chambers is a new phenomenon, not a time tested one. Digg wasn't a terrible hateful echo chamber, reddit was not, most topic oriented forums are not, lots of alternative sites springing up nowadays are not, Facebook, MySpace, the list goes on. No, the phenomenon that lasted really only a few years was due to the fact that the first Diaspor…
> Digg wasn't a terrible hateful echo chamber, reddit was not, most topic oriented forums are not Those platforms, from the topic oriented platforms, to digg & reddit all stressed moderation. What's new is this idea that any sort of moderation is an infringement of free speech and content platforms should moderate as little as possible. Moderation used to be far stricter when platforms were smaller.
It's not that any sort of moderation is an attack on free speech. It is that the meaning of the word "moderation" is being stretched and warped. When those sites began, moderation was removing illegal content (illegal in the US), and community moderation was ensuring on topic discussion. You could essentially say whatever you felt like, and those places didn't devolve into cesspools of hate.
Nowadays even on topic discussion and critical and informed discussion of controversial topics is "moderated". In some communities it is so bad that even by the letter on topic discussion that deviates from some community orthodoxy is removed. Worse still, in a lot of cases groups of moderators share lists of people to crusade against.
The problem I have is that the old, actual definition of moderation is used to show how productive communities can exist, and then that is given as an justification for this new form of suppressive moderation that does not produce productive discussion.
The distinction must be made between moderation and control of narratives. You might not want to call it censorship because it isn't a government doing it, but it isn't the same as what internet perusers have always referred to when we use the word " moderation".
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.
You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives. This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter never actually say things are fake; they say things are baseless and without evidence. If you want to post things that are influential you simply need to back that claim up with…
Will Twitter employ people to actually verify anything themselves?
What will they go by when there are multiple versions of stories based on who you ask?
Will they block all the stories where there are anonymous sources?
Will they block all opinion pieces?
And no, lack of evidence doesn't make things fake. Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. Even for things that may require evidence, evidence can always be found later or presented later. If Twitter had existed since the 60s, would it be right for them to block everything mentioning Higgs boson until evidence for it was found in 2012?
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#135This is incredibly concerning as only twitter or inherently biased "fact checking" services will likely control the definition of what is or is not "misinformation".
This is the big-tech equivalent of saying "we might be joking or being cheeky when we ban someone" just to add more legal ambiguity and grey areas when it comes to explaining why they banned / flagged something or let something be allowed.
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are saying this as though we have standards now. For example, I see plenty of people touting the idea that everyone should be nice to one another. This is becoming a meme in society. I see the shittiest people wishing others to be nice to one another. It's become a cognitive dissonance. It is only matter of time till being "nice" becomes state mandated in a country (US) where if I want to be a piece of shit, I ca…
I sense hate speech, you will be added to special list whose posts will be verified by group of people from city X which voted 90% for party X. You can either fall in line and align yourself with 9 media outlets or be "fact checked". /s
This joke is frightening hilarious
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.
I agree. Example: The famous photo of Anderson Cooper standing in a ditch, pretending as if there was a catstrophic flood. (Really, the water was only a few inches deep.) Would Twitter flag that one? It's a given they'd flag Trump a bunch. How about Joe Biden saying he would not ban fracking? Would Twitter flag that one? Twitter is going to have a very hard time making anybody happy with this idea.
Are you talking about the photo discussed here [1]?
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anderson-cooper-hurricane/
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't always agree, but on the balance HN's moderation is pretty good.
HN moderators are far more active in terms of bending outcomes by percent of total. They regularly remove political discussion even if somewhat relevant, and honestly the flag feature is broken and needs a higher threshold and better counter flag measures. You just don’t notice it because it happens quickly and then the article disappears. They should have the ability to see flagged content, especially content that g…
I see dead posts. I also habitually look to the bottom of the page, where the controversial opinions are. New submissions are usually more diverse than the home page.
There's very little sport in defending an establishment or consensus position. As they say, if everyone is thinking the same thing, then someone isn't thinking. There's almost nothing to discuss if we all agree.
There's a fair amount of downvoted and flagged content I agree with. It doesn't stop me from reading it. Like Twitter's "fact checks", it draws my attention. There are some topics where even if I agree I can see how those who disagree are incapable of discussing it without devolving into an all out flame war.
The real horror show are HN's shadowbanned accounts. 99% of those are awful.
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's little point trying to explain to the HN crowd. They're majority left leaning so are pro-censorship as long as it's not directed at them. The people who are aware that the "fact checkers" have an agenda either won't accept it through mental gymnastics or simply don't care. Something which will come back to bite them. i.e. > Don't let the Orange man speak. Orange man bad!
I won't be surprised of this being the case on the orange site but the downvoters will probably gaslight you for not having evidence of this; hence the downvotes. As for Twitter, there's no question of the evidence of this bias. The Twitter CEO previously just admitted to this: 'I fully admit our bias is more left-leaning' [0] Looks like the cool kids want their echo-chambers back. [0] https://thehill.com/policy/tech…
There’s plenty of evidence.
You can see this comment, where it was detached to censor me from even talking about censorship.
Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have a better argument if you left out the first half. >"Mostly peaceful protests", an ongoing gross misrepresentation of what normal people would call riots That's a partisan, Fox News talking point. Statistically, the BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. The news happens to focus on the small number that were not. That's also an example of something which could be fairly, scientifically reported on. "Mo…
That's exactly what we're talking about, isn't it? Fragmentation of reality on the internet. There's no way around it because someone will just deny someone else's reality and substitute their own. With intellectual honesty, the following can't be disputed: * "A few riots" is actually hundreds of riots over the longest sustained period of civil unrest in American history (besides the civil war). Here's a geographical…
> the longest sustained period of civil unrest in American history
This is not even close to true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unr...