21–30 of 141 posts
Interesting that Community Notes is mentioned, because it's by far the most reliable anti-"disinformation" mechanism I've seen. The "bluecheck" system has been absolutely wrecked, though. Even with the haphazard patching of grey and gold ticks, a bluecheck more often than not is the sign of self-promoted nonsense.
Interesting that Community Notes is mentioned, because it's by far the most reliable anti-"disinformation" mechanism I've seen. The "bluecheck" system has been absolutely wrecked, though. Even with the haphazard patching of grey and gold ticks, a bluecheck more often than not is the sign of self-promoted nonsense.
Interesting that it is timed with the recent launch of Threads in EU. Will definitely establish a compliance benchmark for X. But the big problem for X is that Musk burned so many bridges with fired employees that the list of whistleblowers for any issues will be endless.
> These are the first formal proceedings launched by the Commission to enforce the first EU-wide horizontal framework for online platforms' responsibility, just 3 years from its proposal.
A mere 3 years! This is, in fairness, quite proactive by EC standards.
I’m curious if X will manage to build up the moderation tools and automation without rehiring as many moderators as they used to have. Looking at the requirements, some of those challenging - preventing fast dissemination of illegal content.
If the recent leak about the moderation policies for Twitter is correct, they don't actually want to remove that kind of content. So it might not be a matter of not having enough moderators right now but also an intentional policy decision to not sanction posts like this. I can't find an English source here and the original is paywalled, but from a German article ( https://www.heise.de/news/Leak-Leugnung-des-Holocaus…
Interesting that Community Notes is mentioned, because it's by far the most reliable anti-"disinformation" mechanism I've seen. The "bluecheck" system has been absolutely wrecked, though. Even with the haphazard patching of grey and gold ticks, a bluecheck more often than not is the sign of self-promoted nonsense.
Did people actually rely on the bluechecks anyway in the first place? For me it was at best a slight help if I was trying to find a celebrity that had impersonators. I would be surprised if I’m a very typical user of course. But still I had the impression the bluecheck system was fondly replaced.
Yes, that is literally what it was designed for, and the only thing it was useful for.
It’s now, I suppose, useful for identifying people to avoid, but it’s no longer useful for preventing impersonation.
The EU government doesn't give a crap about unfair social media algorithms when they benefit their authoritarian agendas (at the expense of citizens) but as soon as soon as the algorithms go against their own agenda, they immediately launch a commission! And, ironically, the algorithms today are less constrained than they've ever been.
What authoritarian agenda? What commission?
The EU government doesn't give a crap about unfair social media algorithms when they benefit their authoritarian agendas (at the expense of citizens) but as soon as soon as the algorithms go against their own agenda, they immediately launch a commission! And, ironically, the algorithms today are less constrained than they've ever been.
What authoritarian agenda? What commission?
But now that X has mostly removed filtering and manipulations from the algorithms, they begin proceedings against it! Just because they don't like the kind of content that people posted. They don't want people to have equal voice.
Not flagging because it is more interesting than usual for a link about Twitter: it's the first time the law is used, and it also _strongly_ hint that they tried first to get access to the informations without legal proceedings. The legalese is strong, but I think most of it is understandable (which is surprising). But: Twitter is now like the 12th social network, who cares?