Why aren't "community notes" just fact-checking and soft-censorship?
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
As long as theyโre genuinely democratic, theyโre just the audience giving feedback
What do you mean by "democratic"?
I mean if they are unfiltered responses that are upvoted in an unfiltered way
They are 100% fact checking.
Why aren't they called "fact-checking" then? Is it because they come from the right now and not from the left?
They were called community notes when they started the feature in 2021. Doesnโt matter which side itโs coming from or what they call it, itโs fact checking and censorship.
You have good opinions.
How is it censorship? The tweet is still there.
Probably some bad ones too. ๐
Replies and quote tweets already exist and thatโs where discussion and debate best take place. Community notes are a totally subjective โmob ruleโ approach to determine what context and additional information is most relevant for other users to see. They are warning labels with no real purpose except to make a bunch of Karens feel powerful.
I feel they are useful especially with all the disinformation on X . I have seen mob rule on replies and quote tweets. Everyone should do their own research but there are so many koolaid drinkers on X.
Community Note: it was originally called Birdwatch
๐คฃ๐ซก
๐๐ซ
Actually very interesting to listen to Elon explain it. Wouldnโt be upset if it caught on.
You should listen to him explain it. Or just carry on I guessโฆ
Actually they do call out moronic bullshit from the right (as well as, of course, moronic bullshit from the left), including moronic bullshit from Elon Musk.
It is fact checking, but is it censorship?
The OP isn't removed when it gets a community note.
Some posts from Elon Musk have community notes, but they are still visible (obviously).
I believe they think any level of correction is โcensorshipโ which is moronic as thereโs some level of right or wrong. You can tell me that I live at Santa Maria drive 1235 if I say thatโs not where I live then me correcting you isnโt censorship. Itโs like with liberals and everything can be true nonsense. I donโt give af about your โtruthโ if youโre giving me false information, youโre just wrong not censored
But even "correcting" someone who's right isn't censorship, it just means you are wrong, not them.
fact checking, yes. Soft-censorship, i don't think so, since they do not reduce the reach of the "fact checked" posts. (unlike the "fact checking" done by facebook and such)
Hmm because the original posts aren't censored(?) it's like a rating on Google reviews. In theory at least. No?
That's why I am saying it's "soft". It's like you let the other person speak, but then you immediately "correct" them with a higher authority take that completely voids them.
I suppose it's a matter of who has access to be the authoritative voice in the case of fact-checking.
I was thinking more of community notes. I'm not entirely sure how they even work on twitter actually. Who is allowed to make them? It's more like consensus opinion of the dominant community's voices or something.
yup fact checking but nostr dont have to copy twitter, we can be #1 source of fake news lol
They are fact-checking. Thatโs the intent.
Is that a good thing or not in your opinion?
Why would it be a bad thing to have fact checking?
I believe right now it is because so many worldwide have been brainwashed into following herd mentality.
Look at what DuPont did. People are quick to forget things.
Yes, and I do think a system like they have that only allows something to be approved when people who have different perspectives agree is a good idea.
See https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/tree/main/sourcecode
Also, I believe it is labeled correctly. It is a โnoteโ which doesnโt imply it is a correction which I think is important.
Because everything is a loaded term these days. Checking a fact isn't a bad thing. Checking an opinion for fact statements isn't inherently bad. Public discourse upon such facts, not bad. Put it all together....aaaaaand now it's censorship and bad and all that. Censorship generally doesn't leave the "Censored" thing available for public view, just so we are all using terms correctly.
I'm a community note creator on XTwitter and it's an uphill battle trying to fact check misinformation over there. FWIW, I was also a news fact-checker editor at Hearst for years and it's an essential part of reporting and journalism.
I think it's time for social media to make it clear that absorbing "citizen journalism" as fact requires serious critical thinking skills on behalf of the public.
"Journalism" from biased reporters who are cheerleaders for the topic are a danger as well, not only for distortion of truth but also for personal agenda.
It's much better to have access to multiple views from biased reporters than a single truth from the ministry of truth.
Nice purple and black ๐
For sure. There's no ministry of truth in the first world, only in dystopian fantasy, as a warning. If anyone has manipulated online media, it was brief attempts that didn't last. But biased reporting is not the whole truth. The more reputable reporting is filtered to the top. Unreliable subject matter bloggers / vlogger influencers and their sycophantic fans can be ignored by discerning viewers. There's a lot more to say but I need to drink my latte.
Journalism needs to be a fair and balanced reporting on both sides of an issue, from neutral third parties.
Journalism has never been unbiased. Your former employer Hearst was making up entire battles during the Spanish American War in the 19th Century.
