4 ms·

No. The Ministry of Truth and the protagonist of 1984, it’s employee, were engaged in revising the written record to make it match what the Party wanted in the

No. The Ministry of Truth and the protagonist of 1984, it’s employee, were engaged in revising the written record to make it match what the Party wanted in the present. They were also the only source of information. Twitter is not doing the former and isn’t the latter, so equating it with Minitrue is 100% factually incorrect.

djsumdog 6y ago
Sure not everything matches up. The Ministry of Truth was government, but in America the same type of group exists and it's private. They don't have to rewrite history. They're rewriting the present.
- WalterGR 6y ago
  They're rewriting the present. That’s typically referred to, at its most specific: fact checking, less specifically: news reporting, and most generally: making a claim of fact... when one disagrees with the check, report, or claim.
- jcadam 6y ago
  > America the same type of group exists and it's private You gotta admire the genius of it all. The state gets to control speech and the press via willing private citizens and corporations, whilst keeping its hands clean.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    The OP is literally about Twitter refusing to publishing The State's propaganda, and The State complaining about it.
dsaavy 6y ago
Reddit absolutely revises written record, like this: https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/ So I'd certainly say Reddit is at least comparable. Additionally, I see fact checks on tons of conservative posts on Facebook and Twitter (rightfully so most of the time). But the same procedure isn't followed for liberal posts. I haven't seen any possible misinformation warnings on Facebook or Twitter for something like: people claiming the BLEXIT supporters at Trump's recent speech were paid. According to ABC News, some supporters travel and room/board were paid (but they didn't release any of the emails, just allegedly quoted them). So it would be misleading to say that BLEXIT supporters were paid to attend the speech, it should be labeled as a "possibly misleading" statement like the claims from the right typically are. I mean, the emails haven't even been released and/or verified as existing and people are just running with it because it's ABC? Edit: would love to know why I'm getting downvotes for providing a comment with a source and a different viewpoint?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  What's misleading about saying that people who received room and board were paid?
  - dsaavy 6y ago
    Offering to cover someone's travel expenses is different than offering to pay someone to attend the speech. For anyone who has contracted before, that's an explicit difference that is usually discussed and agreed upon before the contract is signed by both parties. If a contracting client offered to pay for your room and board and travel expenses, but not for your time in the office to work on the project, it's a bad deal. Or they could pay for your time in the office but not travel expenses. Or they can pay for everything. Those are three separate situations. By not clarifying which one it is, it's misleading. So if the client said we'll pay you to come work on this project and you'd have to travel to it, then you get there and they only pay for room and board, you'd be pretty pissed. The lack of specificity is the same thing happening here in the reporting. Therefore it's misleading.

djsumdog 6y ago

Sure not everything matches up. The Ministry of Truth was government, but in America the same type of group exists and it's private. They don't have to rewrite history. They're rewriting the present.

WalterGR 6y ago
They're rewriting the present. That’s typically referred to, at its most specific: fact checking, less specifically: news reporting, and most generally: making a claim of fact... when one disagrees with the check, report, or claim.
jcadam 6y ago
> America the same type of group exists and it's private You gotta admire the genius of it all. The state gets to control speech and the press via willing private citizens and corporations, whilst keeping its hands clean.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The OP is literally about Twitter refusing to publishing The State's propaganda, and The State complaining about it.

dsaavy 6y ago

Reddit absolutely revises written record, like this: https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/ So I'd certainly say Reddit is at least comparable. Additionally, I see fact checks on tons of conservative posts on Facebook and Twitter (rightfully so most of the time). But the same procedure isn't followed for liberal posts. I haven't seen any possible misinformation warnings on Facebook or Twitter for something like: people claiming the BLEXIT supporters at Trump's recent speech were paid. According to ABC News, some supporters travel and room/board were paid (but they didn't release any of the emails, just allegedly quoted them). So it would be misleading to say that BLEXIT supporters were paid to attend the speech, it should be labeled as a "possibly misleading" statement like the claims from the right typically are. I mean, the emails haven't even been released and/or verified as existing and people are just running with it because it's ABC? Edit: would love to know why I'm getting downvotes for providing a comment with a source and a different viewpoint?

srtjstjsj 6y ago
What's misleading about saying that people who received room and board were paid?
- dsaavy 6y ago
  Offering to cover someone's travel expenses is different than offering to pay someone to attend the speech. For anyone who has contracted before, that's an explicit difference that is usually discussed and agreed upon before the contract is signed by both parties. If a contracting client offered to pay for your room and board and travel expenses, but not for your time in the office to work on the project, it's a bad deal. Or they could pay for your time in the office but not travel expenses. Or they can pay for everything. Those are three separate situations. By not clarifying which one it is, it's misleading. So if the client said we'll pay you to come work on this project and you'd have to travel to it, then you get there and they only pay for room and board, you'd be pretty pissed. The lack of specificity is the same thing happening here in the reporting. Therefore it's misleading.