4 ms·

lol what, he is biased for pointing out misinformation from a prominent public figure, after years of Twitter being criticised for allowing false information to

by adwww 6y ago

lol what, he is biased for pointing out misinformation from a prominent public figure, after years of Twitter being criticised for allowing false information to proliferate?

djohnston 6y ago
No no, he is biased from his own Twitter history. It is clear he despises Trump and conservatives more generally. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would certainly pause to consider the ramifications of this individual being the source of truthiness for Twitter b
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  We'll see how it goes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone with strong personal biases was put in a position to editorialize on someone else's signal.
plehoux 6y ago
I think he is referencing those tweets: https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1265457578215124995 https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...
- radiator 6y ago
  Wow! I would say, unless Twitter has double standards, it should fact-check the tweets of its own "head of integrity".
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Twitter obviously has double standards; has for years. Remember when the US elected a troll and Twitter responded to calls they enforce their own TOS by modifying the TOS to have a carve-out for "newsworthiness?"
- adwww 6y ago
  ha oh, in that case that's a bit of an own goal from Twitter. Although I doubt he put that fact checking warning up all on his own, there must have been a policy in place that senior management agreed to, and legal have presumably okayed.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong? Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias. So, have they?
  - free_rms 6y ago
    The appearance is disqualifying on its own. They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.
    - surfpel 6y ago
      > They're gonna get dragged for these tweets They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else. Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...
      - free_rms 6y ago
        Yeah, but why hand them ammo. Like you say. I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface. Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_11disqualification/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I think it's a much greater stretch to pretend that this person's obvious political bias doesn't leak into the "fact checking" they choose to do - or not to do, which is kind of the bigger issue. They may "correctly", ignoring the philosophically charged issue of "correct", fact check a certain politician but choose to ignore a different politician's statements that would otherwise be noted as incorrect under the same or similar standard.
gonzo41 6y ago
Everyone hates change. Twitter wants to live in the future so it has to change and show behaviors more like the news and information service it currently is, And trump and others don't want twitter to change because currently they can communicate with bubbles isolated from reality. I really don't like twitter for all the crap and bots that's on there. I think it's a terrible format. But I think we are in a middle time, were new publishers and formats are rising at the same time as traditional media is falling. Hopefully larger publisher's and media organizations such as Facebook, Google and Twitter take the power and responsibility they have seriously.
noworriesnate 6y ago
It is not misinformation to be concerned about mail-in ballots. There have been screw ups with mail in ballots in the past. For example: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96437123 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=964371... For more stories just google "Military main-in ballots lost"

by adwww 6y ago

lol what, he is biased for pointing out misinformation from a prominent public figure, after years of Twitter being criticised for allowing false information to proliferate?

djohnston 6y ago

No no, he is biased from his own Twitter history. It is clear he despises Trump and conservatives more generally. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would certainly pause to consider the ramifications of this individual being the source of truthiness for Twitter b

shadowgovt 6y ago
We'll see how it goes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone with strong personal biases was put in a position to editorialize on someone else's signal.

plehoux 6y ago

I think he is referencing those tweets: https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1265457578215124995 https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...

radiator 6y ago
Wow! I would say, unless Twitter has double standards, it should fact-check the tweets of its own "head of integrity".
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Twitter obviously has double standards; has for years. Remember when the US elected a troll and Twitter responded to calls they enforce their own TOS by modifying the TOS to have a carve-out for "newsworthiness?"
adwww 6y ago
ha oh, in that case that's a bit of an own goal from Twitter. Although I doubt he put that fact checking warning up all on his own, there must have been a policy in place that senior management agreed to, and legal have presumably okayed.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong? Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias. So, have they?
- free_rms 6y ago
  The appearance is disqualifying on its own. They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.
  - surfpel 6y ago
    > They're gonna get dragged for these tweets They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else. Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...
    - free_rms 6y ago
      Yeah, but why hand them ammo. Like you say. I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface. Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_11disqualification/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I think it's a much greater stretch to pretend that this person's obvious political bias doesn't leak into the "fact checking" they choose to do - or not to do, which is kind of the bigger issue. They may "correctly", ignoring the philosophically charged issue of "correct", fact check a certain politician but choose to ignore a different politician's statements that would otherwise be noted as incorrect under the same or similar standard.

gonzo41 6y ago

Everyone hates change. Twitter wants to live in the future so it has to change and show behaviors more like the news and information service it currently is, And trump and others don't want twitter to change because currently they can communicate with bubbles isolated from reality. I really don't like twitter for all the crap and bots that's on there. I think it's a terrible format. But I think we are in a middle time, were new publishers and formats are rising at the same time as traditional media is falling. Hopefully larger publisher's and media organizations such as Facebook, Google and Twitter take the power and responsibility they have seriously.

noworriesnate 6y ago

It is not misinformation to be concerned about mail-in ballots. There have been screw ups with mail in ballots in the past. For example: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96437123 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=964371... For more stories just google "Military main-in ballots lost"