4 ms·

All this talk about the Streisand Effect really misses the point. This story was going viral regardless of anyone's actions. What Twitter did was ensure it went

All this talk about the Streisand Effect really misses the point. This story was going viral regardless of anyone's actions. What Twitter did was ensure it went viral in the context of the warnings of it being disinformation and Twitters efforts at containing its spread. Disinformation is powerful when the information spreads farther and faster than the facts or mitigating context. Ensuring the information is presented with full context is a significant win. If the goal is to reduce this story's ability to influence the election, then Twitter's actions were successful.

MR4D 6y ago
> Ensuring the information is presented with full context... The fact that you are setting that as the standard for a company that has based its entire existence on people sending messages of 140 characters (and now up to 280) is pretty ironic, don’t you think?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
free_rms 6y ago
There's viral and then there's viral. We're still talking about this story a week later right now, in a media environment where way bigger scandals are forgotten in a day because the President said covid gives you super-speed or something.
TechBro8615 6y ago
> If the goal is to reduce this story's ability to influence the election, then Twitter's actions were successful. Following this logic, how was censoring the story not a corporate in-kind contribution to the Biden campaign?
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
I thought about this, and this seems an odd claim to me: Twitter has, and has had for some time, the capability to tag tweets with "this is possibly a bot" or "this is possibly misinformation". As much as I disagree with them even doing that (and reasonable people can disagree with me, it is not a fervently held belief), it seemed odd to me that they chose the nuclear option rather than simply tweet tagging.

4 ms·

All this talk about the Streisand Effect really misses the point. This story was going viral regardless of anyone's actions. What Twitter did was ensure it went

by hackinthebochs 6y ago

MR4D 6y ago
> Ensuring the information is presented with full context... The fact that you are setting that as the standard for a company that has based its entire existence on people sending messages of 140 characters (and now up to 280) is pretty ironic, don’t you think?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
free_rms 6y ago
There's viral and then there's viral. We're still talking about this story a week later right now, in a media environment where way bigger scandals are forgotten in a day because the President said covid gives you super-speed or something.
TechBro8615 6y ago
> If the goal is to reduce this story's ability to influence the election, then Twitter's actions were successful. Following this logic, how was censoring the story not a corporate in-kind contribution to the Biden campaign?
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
I thought about this, and this seems an odd claim to me: Twitter has, and has had for some time, the capability to tag tweets with "this is possibly a bot" or "this is possibly misinformation". As much as I disagree with them even doing that (and reasonable people can disagree with me, it is not a fervently held belief), it seemed odd to me that they chose the nuclear option rather than simply tweet tagging.