4 ms·

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. Twitter's "fact check" singles out a speci

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. Twitter's "fact check" singles out a specific Trump tweet. It's clearly a human intervention by Twitter staff, not user generated content. The subject of Trump's tweet was a political dispute, and while Trump certainly had false statements in his tweet, that's basically par for the course on Twitter. This raises a bunch of questions. Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements? If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels? We have seen this also with the coronavirus breakout. Medium and other publishers removed posts based that were sanguine data analysis (nothing inflammatory) because they were against the prevailing media sentiment. For example this Medium post [1] was removed based on its content. It did not contain anything inflammatory, violent, or otherwise unsavory. Medium just didn't like what it said. At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). They are certainly within their rights do curate/moderate their platform, but if this continues, we need to start thinking of these companies less like user driven platforms, and more like opinionated publishers. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894 https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com...

JustSomeNobody 6y ago
> Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements? They aren't. They've labeled other tweets before. > If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels? Presumably, yes.
- epistasis 6y ago
  Economics is quite different than election interference, so I'm not sure that Twitter would make any "fact check" statements when it comes to economics. The idea of "facts" in economics can't extend very far beyond metics and other numbers, as most of the rest is up to vigorous theoretical, political debate. If this original poster is so keen on fact checking the "economics" of a certain political sides, it seems likely that they are not concerned with actual facts but rather deeply held theoretical and political beliefs that they have elevated to "fact" status.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  It does make a lot of sense to fact check the most viewed tweets first, doesn’t it? If you want to stop the spread of misinformation through your platform, you don’t start with the tweets of a rural politician with 8 followers.
creddit 6y ago
Unsurprising that this is being downvoted. Any call out of far left views specifically gets that treatment. Does anyone who is downvoting this want to provide counter arguments or reasons this content shouldn’t be viewed by others? It all seems very reasonable and well thought out to me.
Goronmon 6y ago
At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). What does "neutral discussion platform" even mean? My understanding is that Fox News, New York Times, CNN, etc, all benefit from protections against what users post in places like comments sections, etc. This whole "neutrality" aspect seems like a talking point meant to attack social media platforms from a strawman perspective of "Only 'neutral' platforms are allowed protections from liability" that doesn't seem to actually be related to the law itself. I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. I wouldn't consider basic moderation activities as "murky territory".
- creddit 6y ago
  “Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast. BTW, don’t think voter fraud with mail in votes is possible? Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless The GOP knows it’s an issue better than anyone since they leverage it heavily.
  - Goronmon 6y ago
    “Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private business/platform/etc in existence) and what does this have to do with the law in question?
    - creddit 6y ago
angst_ridden 6y ago
Again, this entire mess is because they chose not to enforce their own TOS when it comes to the President's account. Twitter is trying to control the damage, and opted for something that doesn't solve the problem, infuriated the President, and will result in greater problems going forward.
HeroOfAges 6y ago
Twitter ceased to become a platform when they changed the content of The President's tweet. They literally editorialized his content. That act made them a publisher.
- dylan-m 6y ago
  They also cut off the corners on his profile picture, listed a bunch of replies from users in a particular order (almost definitely not curated by humans, but it _could_ be?), reserve the right to make those replies more or less visible in relation to the tweet, added some widgets which make it very easy to report (and hide) an abusive tweet... The content he provided is a <=280 character string. It is reproduced verbatim.
specialp 6y ago
This is a pretty rational argument. Where does one draw the line with "fact checks". I don't like Trump at all. Which is why I don't like seeing "My political tribe disagrees with you" down votes. Shouldn't we be better than that? In general the HN crowd tends to be for free speech and less with platforms censoring or restricting people. Now yes Trump says downright false things all the time, and IMO is a dangerous person. But let's take him out of the equation and look at this objectively.

JustSomeNobody 6y ago

> Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements? They aren't. They've labeled other tweets before. > If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels? Presumably, yes.

epistasis 6y ago
Economics is quite different than election interference, so I'm not sure that Twitter would make any "fact check" statements when it comes to economics. The idea of "facts" in economics can't extend very far beyond metics and other numbers, as most of the rest is up to vigorous theoretical, political debate. If this original poster is so keen on fact checking the "economics" of a certain political sides, it seems likely that they are not concerned with actual facts but rather deeply held theoretical and political beliefs that they have elevated to "fact" status.
spiderfarmer 6y ago
It does make a lot of sense to fact check the most viewed tweets first, doesn’t it? If you want to stop the spread of misinformation through your platform, you don’t start with the tweets of a rural politician with 8 followers.

creddit 6y ago

Unsurprising that this is being downvoted. Any call out of far left views specifically gets that treatment. Does anyone who is downvoting this want to provide counter arguments or reasons this content shouldn’t be viewed by others? It all seems very reasonable and well thought out to me.

Goronmon 6y ago

At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). What does "neutral discussion platform" even mean? My understanding is that Fox News, New York Times, CNN, etc, all benefit from protections against what users post in places like comments sections, etc. This whole "neutrality" aspect seems like a talking point meant to attack social media platforms from a strawman perspective of "Only 'neutral' platforms are allowed protections from liability" that doesn't seem to actually be related to the law itself. I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. I wouldn't consider basic moderation activities as "murky territory".

creddit 6y ago
“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast. BTW, don’t think voter fraud with mail in votes is possible? Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless The GOP knows it’s an issue better than anyone since they leverage it heavily.
- Goronmon 6y ago
  “Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private business/platform/etc in existence) and what does this have to do with the law in question?
  - creddit 6y ago

angst_ridden 6y ago

Again, this entire mess is because they chose not to enforce their own TOS when it comes to the President's account. Twitter is trying to control the damage, and opted for something that doesn't solve the problem, infuriated the President, and will result in greater problems going forward.

HeroOfAges 6y ago

Twitter ceased to become a platform when they changed the content of The President's tweet. They literally editorialized his content. That act made them a publisher.

dylan-m 6y ago
They also cut off the corners on his profile picture, listed a bunch of replies from users in a particular order (almost definitely not curated by humans, but it _could_ be?), reserve the right to make those replies more or less visible in relation to the tweet, added some widgets which make it very easy to report (and hide) an abusive tweet... The content he provided is a <=280 character string. It is reproduced verbatim.

specialp 6y ago

This is a pretty rational argument. Where does one draw the line with "fact checks". I don't like Trump at all. Which is why I don't like seeing "My political tribe disagrees with you" down votes. Shouldn't we be better than that? In general the HN crowd tends to be for free speech and less with platforms censoring or restricting people. Now yes Trump says downright false things all the time, and IMO is a dangerous person. But let's take him out of the equation and look at this objectively.