3 ms·

Is providing fact-check links to the tweets of a specific person or group considered editorizing? Twitter said offering fact-check was not editorization, but th

Is providing fact-check links to the tweets of a specific person or group considered editorizing? Twitter said offering fact-check was not editorization, but the critics said that fact-checking a targeted group was. I have yet to see anyone clarify that key difference.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TallGuyShort 6y ago
I could see how it would be considered editorializing. I haven't looked much at the facts in this particular case myself, but I've definitely seen cases where fact checks seemed to be dripping with a bias or agenda of their own. But here's the thing: that's fine! I can see why people would think that Constitutional protections of individual free speech apply on social media, but regardless of if you think they do or not, then adding editorial content to the posts should be protected as well. Do you think the 1st amendment protects your posts because they're "speech"? Yes? Then Twitter also has free speech on it's own platform, even if it's biased. Do you think the 1st amendment does not protect your posts, because Twitter is a private company? Yes? Then Twitter is also allowed to say whatever it wants on it's own private platform. There's a difference between censoring, which is a whole other discussion, and adding editorial or fact-checking content, and I just don't see how anyone can argue that Twitter can't do the latter. edit: there's also a difference in individual free speech and companies having free speech, but I think Trump is the last person who can make a stand on the idea that commercial interests can't be operated based on individual preferences.
jboog 6y ago
Twitter isn't targeting any specific group so this is a moot point. They have been and will continue to "fact check" liberals and democrats too. This reminds me of the dishonest framing of the IRS supposedly targeting conservative non profits for audits. Yes, it is true Obama's DOJ targeted these groups. What you'll never hear from the GOP talking points is that the IRS also targeted liberal groups for the same audits.
kyrra 6y ago
WSJ Editorial Board's take on this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-plays-into-trumps-hands-11590621733 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-plays-into-trumps-hands... One key quote: > On California, Twitter is right that Mr. Trump is wrong. But on voter fraud, it’s complicated. There isn’t evidence of widespread fraud in mail voting. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Last year a close House election in North Carolina was thrown out because of accusations that a Republican operative illegally collected absentee ballots, including incomplete ballots that his workers allegedly filled in. Investigators then also charged him with doing similar funny business in 2016.
zmmmmm 6y ago
Since they do not alter the content of the tweet itself in any way, and since "fact check" link itself does not express an opinion (eg: it just says "get the facts" as opposed to "potentially misleading") then it seems extremely hard to arge that it's editorialising of the tweet. If the fact check page contains very opinionated content written by Twitter employees then it might bring it closer into consideration, but if the fact check page factually summarises and cites external sources again it is hard to argue.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TallGuyShort 6y ago

I could see how it would be considered editorializing. I haven't looked much at the facts in this particular case myself, but I've definitely seen cases where fact checks seemed to be dripping with a bias or agenda of their own. But here's the thing: that's fine! I can see why people would think that Constitutional protections of individual free speech apply on social media, but regardless of if you think they do or not, then adding editorial content to the posts should be protected as well. Do you think the 1st amendment protects your posts because they're "speech"? Yes? Then Twitter also has free speech on it's own platform, even if it's biased. Do you think the 1st amendment does not protect your posts, because Twitter is a private company? Yes? Then Twitter is also allowed to say whatever it wants on it's own private platform. There's a difference between censoring, which is a whole other discussion, and adding editorial or fact-checking content, and I just don't see how anyone can argue that Twitter can't do the latter. edit: there's also a difference in individual free speech and companies having free speech, but I think Trump is the last person who can make a stand on the idea that commercial interests can't be operated based on individual preferences.

jboog 6y ago

Twitter isn't targeting any specific group so this is a moot point. They have been and will continue to "fact check" liberals and democrats too. This reminds me of the dishonest framing of the IRS supposedly targeting conservative non profits for audits. Yes, it is true Obama's DOJ targeted these groups. What you'll never hear from the GOP talking points is that the IRS also targeted liberal groups for the same audits.

kyrra 6y ago

WSJ Editorial Board's take on this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-plays-into-trumps-hands-11590621733 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-plays-into-trumps-hands... One key quote: > On California, Twitter is right that Mr. Trump is wrong. But on voter fraud, it’s complicated. There isn’t evidence of widespread fraud in mail voting. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Last year a close House election in North Carolina was thrown out because of accusations that a Republican operative illegally collected absentee ballots, including incomplete ballots that his workers allegedly filled in. Investigators then also charged him with doing similar funny business in 2016.

zmmmmm 6y ago

Since they do not alter the content of the tweet itself in any way, and since "fact check" link itself does not express an opinion (eg: it just says "get the facts" as opposed to "potentially misleading") then it seems extremely hard to arge that it's editorialising of the tweet. If the fact check page contains very opinionated content written by Twitter employees then it might bring it closer into consideration, but if the fact check page factually summarises and cites external sources again it is hard to argue.