Earlier quoted context omitted.
> exploring the data I saw are way more "anti-China" notes than "pro-China" notes. Maybe that is the problem, it is seen as pro/anti X instead of facts/lies. > You could give only one example where community notes were abused to spread misinformation and If you ask this, you miss the point. How exactly do you expect me to tell a true note from a false one? The medium is the problem here. > with time the correct note…
> Maybe that is the problem, it is seen as pro/anti X instead of facts/lies. What I meant is that there are more notes correcting pro-China lies than anti-China lies. So the removal of community notes would benefit pro-China propagandists. > If you ask this, you miss the point. How exactly do you expect me to tell a true note from a false one? The medium is the problem here. Use your head. Do your research. Trust you…
Exactly. Just show me tweets well-sorted and let me decide. Don’t tell me “here is truth” (which is what “here is context” is intended to look like).
> right. It should be quick but I have no way to tell how long it took for the better note to prevail
You can’t. Because the implementation is botched.
> Nobody wants that.
Nobody wants community notes as is. Anyone who wants them only wants them because it’s a great way to disseminate disinformation.
> With community notes you can choose to ignore the context
Just like you could have chosen to ignore lies in the actual tweet without any community notes adding yet another layer of lies, only harder to ignore because it is now called “context” but really is just some guy’s opinion that won a popularity contest.
The context should just be a top reply, but then who would pay Elon 8 bucks to show up first?