|
Post by robeiae on May 27, 2020 9:12:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 27, 2020 11:08:40 GMT -5
I think they're kind of in a bind. On the one hand, Trump consistently violates their terms of service, so some form of action seems responsible or appropriate. On the other hand, they can't very well suspend or ban him... I mean, in theory they can but can you imagine the response? Not only would they lose a TON of users but be in for all kinds of vitriol (and maybe worse).
I think a label indicating a tweet may be untruthful is about as decent a middle ground as they could find. (And I think it's gonna drive Trump mad, a little flag on every deceptive play he makes, a drop of cold water on a burgeoning flame designed to heat up his loyalists).
That said, it doesn't seem like this guys should be the one wielding the warning pen.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 27, 2020 13:54:32 GMT -5
In my view, Twitter needs to pick a position and stick with it. It's either about a free exchange of ideas, or it isn't. And in that regard, they need to get rid of the blue check marks, altogether.
People violate the terms of service constantly, every minute of every day. People post outright bullshit as facts and dim-witted claims as thoughtful analysis all the time, which might be seen as a tsunami of tweets desperately in need of labels like the ones on Trump's tweets.
Of course, the problem is that Twitter is a business, is "monetized," so it's no longer about the information, it's about making money off of people using the platform. Really, it would be a much better place of there were no "professional" accounts, no politicians, no government agencies, no news/media organizations, no businesses. It would be better if it was actually, you know, "social" media. But it's not, and I can see it backtracking.
So I think it needs to stick with the previous iteration, imperfect though it may be: people can report posts that think violate the user agreement. Twitter can then either remove such tweets or not, depending on its own findings.
Attaching caveats to posts is stupid, imo, because it needs to be universal to do it right, and that's never going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 28, 2020 8:29:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 28, 2020 10:33:29 GMT -5
I think they're kind of in a bind. On the one hand, Trump consistently violates their terms of service, so some form of action seems responsible or appropriate. On the other hand, they can't very well suspend or ban him... I mean, in theory they can but can you imagine the response? Not only would they lose a TON of users but be in for all kinds of vitriol (and maybe worse). I think a label indicating a tweet may be untruthful is about as decent a middle ground as they could find. (And I think it's gonna drive Trump mad, a little flag on every deceptive play he makes, a drop of cold water on a burgeoning flame designed to heat up his loyalists). That said, it doesn't seem like this guys should be the one wielding the warning pen. I agree, in principle, with the middle ground approach you suggested. Unfortunately, research into a similar approach taken by Facebook a while ago showed that these types of fact-checking content warnings can actually have the opposite effect of what's intended. That is, they can actually slightly increase people's perceptions of the accuracy of misinformation in adjacent posts that aren't labeled. The results of this study (an earlier draft from two years ago), led to Facebook removing the fact-check feature (no guarantee they won't bring it back, though). I'm not sure what the best solution is, though. I just hope someone comes up with a good one soon: pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on May 28, 2020 18:29:05 GMT -5
Unfortunately, research into a similar approach taken by Facebook a while ago showed that these types of fact-checking content warnings can actually have the opposite effect of what's intended. That is, they can actually slightly increase people's perceptions of the accuracy of misinformation in adjacent posts that aren't labeled. The results of this study (an earlier draft from two years ago), led to Facebook removing the fact-check feature (no guarantee they won't bring it back, though). I bet for some people, it increases their perceptions of accuracy for the posts that are labeled, too. "It's easier to fool a man than to convince a man that he's been fooled." --apocryphal Mark Twain
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 28, 2020 18:39:20 GMT -5
Unfortunately, research into a similar approach taken by Facebook a while ago showed that these types of fact-checking content warnings can actually have the opposite effect of what's intended. That is, they can actually slightly increase people's perceptions of the accuracy of misinformation in adjacent posts that aren't labeled. The results of this study (an earlier draft from two years ago), led to Facebook removing the fact-check feature (no guarantee they won't bring it back, though). I bet for some people, it increases their perceptions of accuracy for the posts that are labeled, too. "It's easier to fool a man than to convince a man that he's been fooled." --apocryphal Mark Twain For some people, probably. It would likely depend on how often they were exposed to the headlines, though, and how much thought they put into them (see: Illusory Truth Effect). There's also this, from the study abstract above:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 28, 2020 18:51:18 GMT -5
That makes a lot of sense. If I see a headline that says "Gore wins the 2000 Election" that has an addendum to it that it has been verified, I'm gonna wonder why it needed that addendum and therefore wonder if it's really true (to some extent, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 28, 2020 19:50:52 GMT -5
On the blue check mark stuff: it occurs to me that tweets from verified accounts might seem more authoritative to a lot people. If the accounts are verified, they must be dealing in facts, right? Especially if the accounts belong to news sites, people in positions of authority, and so on. But then I realized that the Flat Earth Society has a verified twitter account....
Oh, and shouldn't ever tweet made by that account be labeled/tagged by the-powers-that-be at Twitter, as well?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 29, 2020 9:34:04 GMT -5
Well, it's escalating: www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864722348/twitter-hides-trumps-tweet-on-minneapolis-saying-it-glorifies-violencePresident Trump said he will "send in the National Guard" to restore order to Minneapolis, which has been wracked by protests and looting following the death of George Floyd, a black man, after he was pinned to the ground for several minutes by a white police officer. "When the looting starts, the shooting starts," Trump said, prompting Twitter to hide the message for, in its view, "glorifying violence." The warning tweet: This is not gonna end well, imo. Trump's tweet was not particularly smart, but it's hardly the worst, when it comes to promoting violence. Trump supporters are busy digging all kinds of tweets that look as bad or worse, many from verified accounts, that have not been hidden or deleted. Twitter has, I think, backed itself into a corner. What it really needs is for Trump to tweet something really over the line so it can justify disabling his account (and it will have to disable a bunch of other accounts, as well, so as not to appear inconsistent). Even then, Trump's supporters will go apeshit.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 29, 2020 9:43:10 GMT -5
Trump supporters are busy digging all kinds of tweets that look as bad or worse, many from verified accounts, that have not been hidden or deleted. An example of the above:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 29, 2020 9:50:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 29, 2020 9:57:41 GMT -5
Here's another one they're leaping on:
Obviously, way worse than Trump's. And it's a verified account.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 29, 2020 12:00:05 GMT -5
Here's another one they're leaping on: Obviously, way worse than Trump's. And it's a verified account. Seems that person took the tweet down. What did it say?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 29, 2020 16:01:54 GMT -5
I think they--@oliviagatwood--made their account private. Here's a tweet with a screenshot:
"burn it down. fuck property. fuck cops."
She's apparently a white poet, happily banging on her keyboard from the comfort of her home in uber-white Santa Cruz.
|
|