3 ms·

How long before the "misleading" label is used on anything that doesn't match their own political views?

thaumasiotes 6y ago
https://reason.com/2020/10/07/phony-fact-checking-on-forest-fires/ https://reason.com/2020/10/07/phony-fact-checking-on-forest-... (Facebook, not Twitter)
- matchbok 6y ago
  Reason is not a reputable source on anything.
  - haunter 6y ago
    Well according to Twitter they are reputable so there it goes
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Is there anything in the link that you dispute?
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > In my video, Shellenberger dares say, "A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." Climate Feedback doesn't want people to hear that. If you are sailing on a boat made of ice through (salt) water that is 3 degrees below freezing, then a "small" change of 3 degrees absolutely could be the difference between normalcy and catastrophe. Of course that's an extreme example, but presumably Climate Feedback wanted the video to acknowledge that the climate is a non-linear system, with feedback loops and potential phase transitions. It seems absolutely possible that a change in temperature outside of the range that forests are historically used to could cause dramatically different outcomes for those forests.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        So "possible" now means "necessarily"? Because FB's checkers didn't take down any videos claiming that climate change exclusively caused the fires, did they?
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        OK, but that's not really the point. For purposes of this discussion, the point was that the video got rejected based on Climate Feedback. And it got rejected by them on the basis of "reports" from two people, neither of whom had actually seen the video, and neither of whom thought it was problematic once they did see it. So either Climate Feedback rejected it on their own, but lied about why (or had a bureaucratic error), or two reviewers told them it was problematic and then lied about doing so (or both forgot that they had done so). Outsourcing checking for disinformation to people who lie and/or have bureaucratic errors is going to have issues, even if those people are omniscient as to the facts of the subject matter... but nobody actually is that, either.
eplanit 6y ago
I think about 6 months ago, at least.
dbbk 6y ago
Twitter does not have a political view.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  A cursory examination of their leadership's own statements makes it clear this is untrue.
  - dbbk 6y ago
    You don't believe business leaders have the capacity to separate their personal beliefs from corporate policy for a company that serves over 300 million people across the world?
    - Fellshard 6y ago
      I believe, on the basis of evidenced behaviour, that that is not the case, no. They will consistently feel morally compelled or externally pressured by peers to put their finger on the scale.
    - qball 6y ago
      Tell that to Brendan Eich.
  - rvz 6y ago
    Speaking of which: [0] It is clear as day that the views of the CEO and the Twitter platform has influenced the policies and biases against certain groups and enforced bans or shadow-bans on certain users and flags tweets from certain users. If they themselves are compromised or are part of a scandal, they will ban anyone else from spreading this information to try covering it up. [0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...
driverdan 6y ago
I downvoted you because the label is based on facts, not political views. If you have evidence of the contrary please post it and I'll be happy to change my comment.
- classified 6y ago
  And who, exactly, gets to decide what is or isn’t a fact?

https://reason.com/2020/10/07/phony-fact-checking-on-forest-fires/ https://reason.com/2020/10/07/phony-fact-checking-on-forest-... (Facebook, not Twitter)

matchbok 6y ago
Reason is not a reputable source on anything.
- haunter 6y ago
  Well according to Twitter they are reputable so there it goes
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Is there anything in the link that you dispute?
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > In my video, Shellenberger dares say, "A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." Climate Feedback doesn't want people to hear that. If you are sailing on a boat made of ice through (salt) water that is 3 degrees below freezing, then a "small" change of 3 degrees absolutely could be the difference between normalcy and catastrophe. Of course that's an extreme example, but presumably Climate Feedback wanted the video to acknowledge that the climate is a non-linear system, with feedback loops and potential phase transitions. It seems absolutely possible that a change in temperature outside of the range that forests are historically used to could cause dramatically different outcomes for those forests.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      So "possible" now means "necessarily"? Because FB's checkers didn't take down any videos claiming that climate change exclusively caused the fires, did they?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      OK, but that's not really the point. For purposes of this discussion, the point was that the video got rejected based on Climate Feedback. And it got rejected by them on the basis of "reports" from two people, neither of whom had actually seen the video, and neither of whom thought it was problematic once they did see it. So either Climate Feedback rejected it on their own, but lied about why (or had a bureaucratic error), or two reviewers told them it was problematic and then lied about doing so (or both forgot that they had done so). Outsourcing checking for disinformation to people who lie and/or have bureaucratic errors is going to have issues, even if those people are omniscient as to the facts of the subject matter... but nobody actually is that, either.

eplanit 6y ago

I think about 6 months ago, at least.

dbbk 6y ago

Twitter does not have a political view.

Fellshard 6y ago
A cursory examination of their leadership's own statements makes it clear this is untrue.
- dbbk 6y ago
  You don't believe business leaders have the capacity to separate their personal beliefs from corporate policy for a company that serves over 300 million people across the world?
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    I believe, on the basis of evidenced behaviour, that that is not the case, no. They will consistently feel morally compelled or externally pressured by peers to put their finger on the scale.
  - qball 6y ago
    Tell that to Brendan Eich.
- rvz 6y ago
  Speaking of which: [0] It is clear as day that the views of the CEO and the Twitter platform has influenced the policies and biases against certain groups and enforced bans or shadow-bans on certain users and flags tweets from certain users. If they themselves are compromised or are part of a scandal, they will ban anyone else from spreading this information to try covering it up. [0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...

driverdan 6y ago

I downvoted you because the label is based on facts, not political views. If you have evidence of the contrary please post it and I'll be happy to change my comment.

classified 6y ago
And who, exactly, gets to decide what is or isn’t a fact?