4 ms·

As written this "rule" simply allows Twitter to selectively delete videos and images that don't support the narrative they are currently pushing. Next time we

As written this "rule" simply allows Twitter to selectively delete videos and images that don't support the narrative they are currently pushing. Next time we have some "peaceful protesters" burning down cities, there won't be any video on Twitter to let people see what is actually happening. Videos of massive demonstrations against lockdowns and other government mandates will certainly be down the memory hole. You can be certain that curated NYT videos and images will remain, whether or not that video is filled with images of private individuals who have not offered their consent. Twitter is making a large gamble that people won't leave the platform in droves as all they are left with is a whitewashed, Twitter/government approved message. Perhaps they ought to look at what happened to Digg.

m0llusk 5y ago
This is the kind of active truth reengineering that brought us here in the first place. You are the one pushing a narrative about protesters with your framing and language. Much edgy media such as the Jan 6 protester exclaiming it was a revolution are clearly compliant with this rule despite its breadth. Perhaps more focus on raw truth and what people agree to share would be better than all the heavy interpretation up front?
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  >You are the one pushing a narrative about protesters with your framing and language. The narrative I'm pushing is one of transparency. There is no "clear compliance" with this rule because it is deliberately vague and open to the interpretation of Twitter censors - and that is the problem. As written it very clearly delegates the power to Twitter moderators to pick and choose what raw images and videos people will be allowed to see based on no specific metrics at all. The clear fact is that the powers-that-be have lost control over the narrative and desperately want to return to the age when everyone got the same, curated message from ABC, CBS and NBC. From the Bay of Tonkin to WMD to Russiagate, more disinformation and lies has been distributed by the government and the corporate media than all the Qanon shamans and 4Chan basement dwellers combined. These are the people who now claim that they need to impose mass censorship across all major platforms to combat, "disinformation".
jollybean 5y ago
I'm wary of the absolutist tone of this comment, that said, I think the underlying point is reasonable. Coverage of events is filtered to some degree with a clear dose of editorial bias depending on a variety of factors, this does actually matter. Some degree of independence and oversight on these things would help.

m0llusk 5y ago

This is the kind of active truth reengineering that brought us here in the first place. You are the one pushing a narrative about protesters with your framing and language. Much edgy media such as the Jan 6 protester exclaiming it was a revolution are clearly compliant with this rule despite its breadth. Perhaps more focus on raw truth and what people agree to share would be better than all the heavy interpretation up front?

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>You are the one pushing a narrative about protesters with your framing and language. The narrative I'm pushing is one of transparency. There is no "clear compliance" with this rule because it is deliberately vague and open to the interpretation of Twitter censors - and that is the problem. As written it very clearly delegates the power to Twitter moderators to pick and choose what raw images and videos people will be allowed to see based on no specific metrics at all. The clear fact is that the powers-that-be have lost control over the narrative and desperately want to return to the age when everyone got the same, curated message from ABC, CBS and NBC. From the Bay of Tonkin to WMD to Russiagate, more disinformation and lies has been distributed by the government and the corporate media than all the Qanon shamans and 4Chan basement dwellers combined. These are the people who now claim that they need to impose mass censorship across all major platforms to combat, "disinformation".

jollybean 5y ago

I'm wary of the absolutist tone of this comment, that said, I think the underlying point is reasonable. Coverage of events is filtered to some degree with a clear dose of editorial bias depending on a variety of factors, this does actually matter. Some degree of independence and oversight on these things would help.