3 ms·
For people that treat a "Fact Check" as an automatic "filter out this information" (I think there is a huge subset of the population that does, people don't tho
by nautilus12 6y ago
For people that treat a "Fact Check" as an automatic "filter out this information" (I think there is a huge subset of the population that does, people don't thoughtfully take into account Fact Checks, they just treat them as a rebuke), it has the net effect of censorship. The move by twitter is kind of dumb in that sense because the population has already polarized into groups that think anything trump says is false, and those who do not. They are just basically putting an official seal on which side of that argument they land.
- shadowgovt 6y agoAllowing him to post on their service with a counterpoint stitched right underneath his misinformation is far preferable for him to alternatives they could choose. Those alternatives would be "censorship" (in some sense; not any real legal sense). This is not censorship.
- username90 6y agoWhat is the difference between this and the top tweet response posting the same response as always happened before with his tweets? The only thing we learned is that Twitter is no longer even trying to be impartial.
- shadowgovt 6y agoTwitter hasn't been trying to be impartial since the time they chose not to enforce their TOS when the US elected Trump, so that's nothing new. The difference is that Twitter's editorial voice differs from the voice of some Twitter user.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- UncleMeat 6y agoThis is ridiculous. The whole free speech argument is that people can decide for themselves when they have access to more information. Marketplace of ideas and all. Now adding information is somehow bad? There is no consistency in this argument.