4 ms·

I have followed this building up on Twitter and as someone not intimately familiar with this. > The ruling party released a fake document It very well might b

I have followed this building up on Twitter and as someone not intimately familiar with this. > The ruling party released a fake document It very well might be(not that I know about this), but how did Twitter figure this out? As far as I understand, there has been accusations from both sides without proof. I will be really scared if Twitter is taking a stand based on their judgement of what might have happened. Already, censorship and control by social media platforms is on a slippery slope. We can't let them become the arbiters of truth. It might suit one side today but might not suit the same tomorrow when decision comes from a black box. Also, yes these platforms are private spaces but they hold too much power in shaping the public discourse.

wolverine876 5y ago
>> The ruling party released a fake document > It very well might be(not that I know about this), but how did Twitter figure this out? As far as I understand, there has been accusations from both sides without proof. The article answers your question: A prominent fact-checking organization examined the document. You can then question the fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say anything. Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates?
- actuator 5y ago
  I read through it and it says part of the document has been admitted to be true. > You can then question the fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say anything. If I am a citizen of the said country, is a private fact checking organisation answerable to me? I am not saying they are lying, but what are the checks and balances on them. > Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates? Elected governments shouldn't be, but isn't this why other arms of the government exist, like judiciary. You might question judidicary as well but at least on some level they are bound by their constitutional duties and have to follow the law of the land. My worry is, in a lot of places in the world, the more we delegate this trust to private entities, th more powerful we make them. They aren't answerable to people of those countries.
  - Judgmentality 5y ago
    I find your stance slightly bizarre. You don't trust twitter to be the arbiter of truth (which is fair), but you think the Indian government which is widely credited to be falsifying data (I can point you to sources on this, I even personally know a journalist there) will be held accountable to its people? Sure, it'd be nice to hold your government accountable. But when your ruler is effectively a tyrant in a government that is laughably calling itself a democracy, I'd rather have twitter provide its own opinion as well. Because at the end of the day you as the reader can still decide to ignore twitter's judgment and just read the document as you could before. It's additional information, not censorship - whereas the government wants to limit information. Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government. You can ignore twitter's label and still try to hold the Indian government accountable - it's a non sequitur.
    - actuator 5y ago
      > but you think the Indian government which is widely credited to be falsifying data will be held accountable to its people? Isn't this what elections are there for? Didn't the ruling party lose a major election just few weeks back? It was widely covered as a victory against them even in international press. > Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government. It seems you strongly oppose the current establishment. Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked content against them the same way? It might have been true but it might also have been pressure by the establishment. It is not like anyone is asking anyone to trust Twitter. My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds.
      - Judgmentality 5y ago
        > Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked content against them the same way? 100%. My stance is that twitter can add its opinion just the same as anyone. The government trying to censor an opinion is what I consider to be the problem. Even if that opinion is "covid is fake" I think people should be allowed to say it because I believe in free speech. > My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds. Then you must really hate (almost) every news organization in the world. They literally make it their business to do the very thing you seem to oppose. And as far as I'm concerned they have no more credibility, but that's entirely subjective.
- fellellor 5y ago
  Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”. Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. I’d rather it be courts and some legal process, or even the government rather than some so called “prominent fact checking organisation”.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”. What is that based on? > Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. They do? That has never been the case, except in dictatorships where the ruler has claimed to be the arbiter, but few actually believe what they say is truth.
    - fellellor 5y ago
      It’s based on them neither being “prominent”, nor being “fact checkers”. Please produce sources to back your claims. Also cite, why there needn’t be any arbiters of truth in a democracy. Maybe you have fully embraced the post truth age.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 5y ago

>> The ruling party released a fake document > It very well might be(not that I know about this), but how did Twitter figure this out? As far as I understand, there has been accusations from both sides without proof. The article answers your question: A prominent fact-checking organization examined the document. You can then question the fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say anything. Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates?

actuator 5y ago
I read through it and it says part of the document has been admitted to be true. > You can then question the fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say anything. If I am a citizen of the said country, is a private fact checking organisation answerable to me? I am not saying they are lying, but what are the checks and balances on them. > Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own political candidates? Elected governments shouldn't be, but isn't this why other arms of the government exist, like judiciary. You might question judidicary as well but at least on some level they are bound by their constitutional duties and have to follow the law of the land. My worry is, in a lot of places in the world, the more we delegate this trust to private entities, th more powerful we make them. They aren't answerable to people of those countries.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  I find your stance slightly bizarre. You don't trust twitter to be the arbiter of truth (which is fair), but you think the Indian government which is widely credited to be falsifying data (I can point you to sources on this, I even personally know a journalist there) will be held accountable to its people? Sure, it'd be nice to hold your government accountable. But when your ruler is effectively a tyrant in a government that is laughably calling itself a democracy, I'd rather have twitter provide its own opinion as well. Because at the end of the day you as the reader can still decide to ignore twitter's judgment and just read the document as you could before. It's additional information, not censorship - whereas the government wants to limit information. Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government. You can ignore twitter's label and still try to hold the Indian government accountable - it's a non sequitur.
  - actuator 5y ago
    > but you think the Indian government which is widely credited to be falsifying data will be held accountable to its people? Isn't this what elections are there for? Didn't the ruling party lose a major election just few weeks back? It was widely covered as a victory against them even in international press. > Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government. It seems you strongly oppose the current establishment. Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked content against them the same way? It might have been true but it might also have been pressure by the establishment. It is not like anyone is asking anyone to trust Twitter. My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds.
    - Judgmentality 5y ago
      > Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked content against them the same way? 100%. My stance is that twitter can add its opinion just the same as anyone. The government trying to censor an opinion is what I consider to be the problem. Even if that opinion is "covid is fake" I think people should be allowed to say it because I believe in free speech. > My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds. Then you must really hate (almost) every news organization in the world. They literally make it their business to do the very thing you seem to oppose. And as far as I'm concerned they have no more credibility, but that's entirely subjective.
fellellor 5y ago
Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”. Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. I’d rather it be courts and some legal process, or even the government rather than some so called “prominent fact checking organisation”.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”. What is that based on? > Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. They do? That has never been the case, except in dictatorships where the ruler has claimed to be the arbiter, but few actually believe what they say is truth.
  - fellellor 5y ago
    It’s based on them neither being “prominent”, nor being “fact checkers”. Please produce sources to back your claims. Also cite, why there needn’t be any arbiters of truth in a democracy. Maybe you have fully embraced the post truth age.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]