3 ms·
I agree with Zuckerberg. Fact checking isn't possible as most of these things aren't "facts" twitter can prove or disprove. The illegal or threat of harm test s
by mimikatz 6y ago
I agree with Zuckerberg. Fact checking isn't possible as most of these things aren't "facts" twitter can prove or disprove. The illegal or threat of harm test seems like a much more reasonable one.
- akmarinov 6y agoSurely accusing a person of murder where an investigation has concluded otherwise can be proven.
- mimikatz 6y agoThis is exactly what I am getting at. Does it prove otherwise? Can Twitter know the state of truth about this? Should we tag every post saying OJ did it with information about the trial and that he was proven innocent? What about posts about Michael Brown and the Ferguson riots? Courts found the cops innocent do we need to append the Michael Brown was murdered posts with WELL ACTUALLY the court found him not to have been murdered FACT CLOSED.
- HeyZuess 6y agoI am not sure if twitter established any fact to be true or false, rather prompted the readers to additional information. Although there might be an interpretation that the information they pointed to could be bias (in some way).
- kinjba1 6y ago> Fact checking isn't possible Except outright lies and misinformation are easily disproved. But moderation is not cheap. Zuckerberg is working what he sees as the most profitable angle, unsurprisingly, and spinning it to promote his ad company. Ad views are profitable. The fact that a hands-off policy allows the promotion of genocide in Myanmar and spreads hate and propaganda everywhere faster than ever does not matter.