9 ms·

I guess this was inevitable in the end, it must have come to this, but I just find what twitter did so silly. At least if they'd have used some sort of impartia

by zpeti 6y ago

I guess this was inevitable in the end, it must have come to this, but I just find what twitter did so silly. At least if they'd have used some sort of impartial looking fact checker, or an independent panel, or something, as facebook is doing, perhaps they would have prolonged this for longer. But calling CNN a fact checker on the president is so inherently stupid, it's asking for trouble. And of course CNN couldn't get their facts right either, so they are blatantly just representing the other side and not "facts". Twitter really could have done a better job here.

dmarchand90 6y ago
I love that they started to fact check the president, but the very stupid choice to use CNN basically means that shot themselves in the foot...
- bzb3 6y ago
  It was a pure act of arrogance. They might have a plan, but they probably don't. A mistake like this will cost them.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. Besides, all news outlets post a bunch of BS under the cover of "analysis", "opinion", and "op-ed" pieces. Those are all carefully crafted to engage a target audience. NYT does it. WAPO does it. CNN. They are all running outrage factories just producing slightly different flavors..
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    > Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. That's the point, me thinks
arrrg 6y ago
In democratic societies media is the fact checker. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Linking to related media resources makes total sense.
- alpacaillama 6y ago
  I agree. But twitter and facebook claim to be not be publishers but here they are acting as editors (part of publishing). They can’t be both. What do you feel about that?
  - arrrg 6y ago
    I think Twitter would ordinarily just straight up ban users who post blatant untruths about elections. That’s what they have done in the past and what is a direct reaction to what went down during the last US presidential election. Since this is the President Twitter feels understandably uncomfortable with just banning that person, so the next best option is to provide context to what they said. Seems reasonable to me. You can quibble about details, but the basic idea seems sound to me. You can also quibble about inconsistent enforcement and what not, but as far as I know Twitter is just coming down extremely hard on election disinfo (for understandable reasons), so that’s why they are so on this (and not, say, harassment and hate speech – which to my mind is also a very big problem on Twitter and where I see many failings in Twitter’s insufficient reaction). Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. So often in these discussions people aim for perfection which in this messy reality is an impossibility. But saying “Well, perfection is impossible, so we will just do nothing.” or even “Well, there are complexities here, so we will just do nothing.” is just lazy cowardice. Or ideologically motivated.
    - alpacaillama 6y ago
      Yes but those details are what has protected twitter until now. If you decide what goes on and not off your platform, then you are a publisher and responsible for what’s on your platform. The law says this. I am interested in what you think about that, ignoring Trump for a second.
GnarlyWhale 6y ago
What part of the CNN fact-check was incorrect? It's not listed in the original link.
michaelt 6y ago
It might have been smart to use someone other than CNN, but I'm not sure there's any fact checker in the world that Trump would have accepted correction from.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kosievdmerwe 6y ago
  It's not Trump that matters in this context, by using a "fact" checker with a known anti-Trump bias they now have left themselves vulnerable to attacks from other people too who can and likely will form a coalition against them.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Known anti-trump bias as in "known" solely due to the presidents blustering in that direction? Is there concrete evidence of bias? Being critical isn't the same thing

by zpeti 6y ago

dmarchand90 6y ago

I love that they started to fact check the president, but the very stupid choice to use CNN basically means that shot themselves in the foot...

bzb3 6y ago
It was a pure act of arrogance. They might have a plan, but they probably don't. A mistake like this will cost them.
Rapzid 6y ago
Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. Besides, all news outlets post a bunch of BS under the cover of "analysis", "opinion", and "op-ed" pieces. Those are all carefully crafted to engage a target audience. NYT does it. WAPO does it. CNN. They are all running outrage factories just producing slightly different flavors..
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  > Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. That's the point, me thinks

arrrg 6y ago

In democratic societies media is the fact checker. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Linking to related media resources makes total sense.

alpacaillama 6y ago
I agree. But twitter and facebook claim to be not be publishers but here they are acting as editors (part of publishing). They can’t be both. What do you feel about that?
- arrrg 6y ago
  I think Twitter would ordinarily just straight up ban users who post blatant untruths about elections. That’s what they have done in the past and what is a direct reaction to what went down during the last US presidential election. Since this is the President Twitter feels understandably uncomfortable with just banning that person, so the next best option is to provide context to what they said. Seems reasonable to me. You can quibble about details, but the basic idea seems sound to me. You can also quibble about inconsistent enforcement and what not, but as far as I know Twitter is just coming down extremely hard on election disinfo (for understandable reasons), so that’s why they are so on this (and not, say, harassment and hate speech – which to my mind is also a very big problem on Twitter and where I see many failings in Twitter’s insufficient reaction). Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. So often in these discussions people aim for perfection which in this messy reality is an impossibility. But saying “Well, perfection is impossible, so we will just do nothing.” or even “Well, there are complexities here, so we will just do nothing.” is just lazy cowardice. Or ideologically motivated.
  - alpacaillama 6y ago
    Yes but those details are what has protected twitter until now. If you decide what goes on and not off your platform, then you are a publisher and responsible for what’s on your platform. The law says this. I am interested in what you think about that, ignoring Trump for a second.

GnarlyWhale 6y ago

What part of the CNN fact-check was incorrect? It's not listed in the original link.

michaelt 6y ago

It might have been smart to use someone other than CNN, but I'm not sure there's any fact checker in the world that Trump would have accepted correction from.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kosievdmerwe 6y ago
It's not Trump that matters in this context, by using a "fact" checker with a known anti-Trump bias they now have left themselves vulnerable to attacks from other people too who can and likely will form a coalition against them.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Known anti-trump bias as in "known" solely due to the presidents blustering in that direction? Is there concrete evidence of bias? Being critical isn't the same thing