5 ms·

> they fact checked his tweet. They're now "fact checking" obvious satire. That's not merely moderation, but applying a false context that changes the meaning

> they fact checked his tweet. They're now "fact checking" obvious satire. That's not merely moderation, but applying a false context that changes the meaning of the tweet.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I dunno. If readers can see that it is obviously satire, then Twitter just looks silly and no harm has been done. If readers can't tell though, then Twitter is providing a useful service here.
- lliamander 6y ago
  If readers can't tell, then Twitter should label it "satire" not "manipulated content". EDIT: just speculation, but by mislabeling the tweet, I wonder if Twitter could be exposing itself to a libel lawsuit.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    No, they have not. Even without 230 this wouldn’t be libelous for a huge number of reasons. The bar for libel is not “someone is offended”, even if that someone is the president. The contortions that people keep going through to find a way to make Twitter liable is both getting old, and frankly it’s embarrassing.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      My point has nothing to do with being offended or with section 230. The point is: if Twitter is labeling something as "manipulated content" (implying an earnest attempt deceive) when the content is in fact satire, then Twitter is itself making misleading claims. It's like when Snopes was "fact-checking" the Babylon Bee (a satirical news website). They initially labeled some of their articles as false, but then re-labeled it more appropriately as satire after receiving push-back.[1] I'm not even saying Twitter should be sued here. But Twitter is now engaged in speech of their own, rather than just moderating a platform for other peoples' speech. [1]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-c...
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You’re changing the subject. You argued that Twitter might be liable for libel. In order for that to be true, then the speech in question must be libelous. So, even ignoring 230, is mislabeling a satirical argument as false libelous? It is without a single doubt not libelous. First of all, defamation (the larger category that includes libel) usually requires a statement of fact, whereas something being satire vs. just plain wrong is a matter of opinion. It is very hard to sue over matters of opinion, by design. This is why saying “the president is stupid” or “the president is racist” aren’t libelous; those statements are opinions and not objective statements of fact. Second, defamation either needs some form of harm, or it needs to be in a narrow category of statements that are defamation “per se”. The latter category is very narrow and not relevant here, so we can focus on the former. What, pray tell, harm did the president suffer? Finally, the president is a public figure, and the bar for defamation against a public figure is very very high. The standard is “actual malice”, which requires that Twitter knew that they were lying and did it anyways. If Twitter genuinely believed that the video was not satire, even if you think that’s dumb, then they have a rock solid defense against defamation. So no, this was not libel. Nowhere close.
        lliamander 6y ago
        > You’re changing the subject. Um, no? I agree the subject of this conversation is whether Twitter is liable for libel. > So no, this was not libel. Nowhere close. OK, so that's a an answer to my question as to whether it exposes Twitter to libel. Thanks!

> they fact checked his tweet. They're now "fact checking" obvious satire. That's not merely moderation, but applying a false context that changes the meaning of the tweet.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

I dunno. If readers can see that it is obviously satire, then Twitter just looks silly and no harm has been done. If readers can't tell though, then Twitter is providing a useful service here.

lliamander 6y ago
If readers can't tell, then Twitter should label it "satire" not "manipulated content". EDIT: just speculation, but by mislabeling the tweet, I wonder if Twitter could be exposing itself to a libel lawsuit.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  No, they have not. Even without 230 this wouldn’t be libelous for a huge number of reasons. The bar for libel is not “someone is offended”, even if that someone is the president. The contortions that people keep going through to find a way to make Twitter liable is both getting old, and frankly it’s embarrassing.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    My point has nothing to do with being offended or with section 230. The point is: if Twitter is labeling something as "manipulated content" (implying an earnest attempt deceive) when the content is in fact satire, then Twitter is itself making misleading claims. It's like when Snopes was "fact-checking" the Babylon Bee (a satirical news website). They initially labeled some of their articles as false, but then re-labeled it more appropriately as satire after receiving push-back.[1] I'm not even saying Twitter should be sued here. But Twitter is now engaged in speech of their own, rather than just moderating a platform for other peoples' speech. [1]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-c...
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You’re changing the subject. You argued that Twitter might be liable for libel. In order for that to be true, then the speech in question must be libelous. So, even ignoring 230, is mislabeling a satirical argument as false libelous? It is without a single doubt not libelous. First of all, defamation (the larger category that includes libel) usually requires a statement of fact, whereas something being satire vs. just plain wrong is a matter of opinion. It is very hard to sue over matters of opinion, by design. This is why saying “the president is stupid” or “the president is racist” aren’t libelous; those statements are opinions and not objective statements of fact. Second, defamation either needs some form of harm, or it needs to be in a narrow category of statements that are defamation “per se”. The latter category is very narrow and not relevant here, so we can focus on the former. What, pray tell, harm did the president suffer? Finally, the president is a public figure, and the bar for defamation against a public figure is very very high. The standard is “actual malice”, which requires that Twitter knew that they were lying and did it anyways. If Twitter genuinely believed that the video was not satire, even if you think that’s dumb, then they have a rock solid defense against defamation. So no, this was not libel. Nowhere close.
      - lliamander 6y ago
        > You’re changing the subject. Um, no? I agree the subject of this conversation is whether Twitter is liable for libel. > So no, this was not libel. Nowhere close. OK, so that's a an answer to my question as to whether it exposes Twitter to libel. Thanks!