4 ms·

Tweets were not deleted, you are using a strawman. Tweets were marked up with warning messages. It is perfectly sensible to mark as "factually wrong" a message

Tweets were not deleted, you are using a strawman. Tweets were marked up with warning messages. It is perfectly sensible to mark as "factually wrong" a message that says "the sky is green" and as "inciting violence, but has to be kept for historic reasons" when the message is quoting a known oppressor and making threats.

nrmitchi 6y ago
Early today Zuck was quoted as saying: > If you really believe that a post is going to cause people to go to go do real-world violence, then that’s not the type of thing that I think we should have up even behind a warning I believe this may have been what OP was referring to
vorpalhex 6y ago
I think the issue that Twitter is running into now and is going to run into is that they're not applying this in any manner that could be deemed consistent. Do a quick search for "kill the" and you'll find endless tweets without the warning. You could make the case that Twitter only has to enforce this for accounts of importance. Yet there are plenty of officals who have tweets calling for violent jihad, the killing of homosexuals, so on and so on that have been made since the first warning... and that label has still not been applied. Twitter is editorializing, and I greatly fear they are going to ruin Section 230 for all of us.
chrischen 6y ago
To play devil’s advocate, one could use propaganda by only telling truths. This is done by selective truth telling. Can’t twitter’s selective truth telling be considered propaganda, even if the facts it present are not strictly incorrect? For example if Twitter decided to annotate people’s tweets about coronavirus with a “fact” about it originating from China, it wouldn’t be untrue, but it would appear such notices would serve some public opinion shifting effects no? How they select what facts and what tweets to even annotate could be used to pushed an agenda through careful selective information control.

nrmitchi 6y ago

Early today Zuck was quoted as saying: > If you really believe that a post is going to cause people to go to go do real-world violence, then that’s not the type of thing that I think we should have up even behind a warning I believe this may have been what OP was referring to

vorpalhex 6y ago

I think the issue that Twitter is running into now and is going to run into is that they're not applying this in any manner that could be deemed consistent. Do a quick search for "kill the" and you'll find endless tweets without the warning. You could make the case that Twitter only has to enforce this for accounts of importance. Yet there are plenty of officals who have tweets calling for violent jihad, the killing of homosexuals, so on and so on that have been made since the first warning... and that label has still not been applied. Twitter is editorializing, and I greatly fear they are going to ruin Section 230 for all of us.

chrischen 6y ago

To play devil’s advocate, one could use propaganda by only telling truths. This is done by selective truth telling. Can’t twitter’s selective truth telling be considered propaganda, even if the facts it present are not strictly incorrect? For example if Twitter decided to annotate people’s tweets about coronavirus with a “fact” about it originating from China, it wouldn’t be untrue, but it would appear such notices would serve some public opinion shifting effects no? How they select what facts and what tweets to even annotate could be used to pushed an agenda through careful selective information control.