4 ms·

The statement "Lowest unemployment ever!" is definitely 'hedged' in the same manner as this Tweet about benefits. Taking credit for the 'lowest employment' esp

by jasmer 4y ago

The statement "Lowest unemployment ever!" is definitely 'hedged' in the same manner as this Tweet about benefits. Taking credit for the 'lowest employment' especially using the term 'ever' would require an hour of debatable qualifications to make it entirely clear. Would the President make this statement in his 1st month in office, make this a bit of a nonrepresentational statement? Well, probably. But it's still true. This understanding that somehow this specific WH statement is hedged or loaded in some kind of special manner just isn't correct. In fact, you could likely delve a bit deeper into it as well to find even more relevant nuance. "Why do you think that statement isn't intentionally misleading?" It's true, and it doesn't require any more context than any other statement, so it's fine. I think it would be naive of us to expect that the statement by the WH or any political body is going to run us down on the details and caveats of their statements unless they are hugely relevant. Some of the language used here that this causes 'cruelty and harm' etc. is ridiculous. This language within the scope of normal communications enough that we would not even be having this discussion were Twitter to not have initially marked the Tweet. The so called 'cruelty and harm' would have gone entirely unnoticed. And finally, this is not a threshold of content moderation for arbitrary 3rd parties to make arbitrary corrections. I'd love a feature that allowed me to add my favourite 'truthy-meter' to Twitter statements, but I'd loathe to trust Twitter specifically for things that are so mundane. They have a responsibility to call out hard misinformation, such as vaccine or election lies - but not arbitrary quips.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I have mixed feelings about this comment. I can't bring myself to disagree with your premises, but I strongly disagree with the conclusion. > I think it would be naive of us to expect that the statement by the WH or any political body is going to run us down on the details and caveats of their statements unless they are hugely relevant. > Some of the language used here that this causes 'cruelty and harm' etc. is ridiculous. > This language within the scope of normal communications enough that we would not even be having this discussion were Twitter to not have initially marked the Tweet. > The so called 'cruelty and harm' would have gone entirely unnoticed. I won't disagree but that's because of what "naive" means. It reads that I should expect this kind of behavior, to which I would say I shouldn't tolerate it. I should be able to expect that these political bodies don't produce this kind of statement. I do think the "cruelty and harm" would have gone unnoticed because it's so common to see this kind of thing. There are people that won't look into this and will have their vote swayed because of it, despite that it doesn't matter. I don't care that it's true when it's so misleading and I don't think it should be tolerated. I do not think it's hyperbole to use this language, disagreements notwithstanding. I don't remember what it is but I remember hearing a word for this kind of statement. Specifically in public relations, it's a statement that's true on its face and clearly intended to sound good in a particular way, but also missing key context that takes away from the good. Anyway, often in such cases I will read the context in some public comment section, rather than having it pinned by the staff of the site I'm reading. I can understand that people do not like that this was decided by Twitter staff (and I do honestly expect that's what happened given the account's profile), and I would also prefer that this sort of thing is decided by the community or even not at all. But I have to end in defense of "cruelty and harm". You can disagree but it would be naive to think it is simply mistaken thinking.
- jasmer 4y ago
  Your comments make a lot of sense were there material indirection about some material issue, but there isn't. So in this case none of it really applies; notions 'cruelty and harm' are a bit absurd. There is a habit among 'thinking people' to escalate the most innocuous thing to an undeserved proportion. When there are no lingering controversies, the most minor supposed slight - becomes the controversy. This issue is out of proportion for this level of meaningful dissection. More objectively ... the Tweet does not involve policy, it's not political, it's not controversial, it's not 'before the courts', it does not involve foreign policy, it's not 'insensitive or offensive', it doesn't delve into economic matters, it's not related to health or elections, it won't move markets or affect business - and most appropriately - it's essentially factual. It's a banal, truthful statement about some secondary, bureaucratic outcome. If we were to apply this level of conscientious scrutiny to every Tweet or statement, I don't think anyone would ever agree on what 'reality' is. So there is no 'there' there. There's nothing to escalate. We have a free press to add more context, that's their job. Tweets can cause 'harm' obviously, when influential people lie about material things especially related to health, violence, ultra bigotry/racism, political insurrection etc. but otherwise, Twitter is a random tech company, it's beyond their purview to selectively contextualize arbitrary bits of information.

by jasmer 4y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

I have mixed feelings about this comment. I can't bring myself to disagree with your premises, but I strongly disagree with the conclusion. > I think it would be naive of us to expect that the statement by the WH or any political body is going to run us down on the details and caveats of their statements unless they are hugely relevant. > Some of the language used here that this causes 'cruelty and harm' etc. is ridiculous. > This language within the scope of normal communications enough that we would not even be having this discussion were Twitter to not have initially marked the Tweet. > The so called 'cruelty and harm' would have gone entirely unnoticed. I won't disagree but that's because of what "naive" means. It reads that I should expect this kind of behavior, to which I would say I shouldn't tolerate it. I should be able to expect that these political bodies don't produce this kind of statement. I do think the "cruelty and harm" would have gone unnoticed because it's so common to see this kind of thing. There are people that won't look into this and will have their vote swayed because of it, despite that it doesn't matter. I don't care that it's true when it's so misleading and I don't think it should be tolerated. I do not think it's hyperbole to use this language, disagreements notwithstanding. I don't remember what it is but I remember hearing a word for this kind of statement. Specifically in public relations, it's a statement that's true on its face and clearly intended to sound good in a particular way, but also missing key context that takes away from the good. Anyway, often in such cases I will read the context in some public comment section, rather than having it pinned by the staff of the site I'm reading. I can understand that people do not like that this was decided by Twitter staff (and I do honestly expect that's what happened given the account's profile), and I would also prefer that this sort of thing is decided by the community or even not at all. But I have to end in defense of "cruelty and harm". You can disagree but it would be naive to think it is simply mistaken thinking.

jasmer 4y ago
Your comments make a lot of sense were there material indirection about some material issue, but there isn't. So in this case none of it really applies; notions 'cruelty and harm' are a bit absurd. There is a habit among 'thinking people' to escalate the most innocuous thing to an undeserved proportion. When there are no lingering controversies, the most minor supposed slight - becomes the controversy. This issue is out of proportion for this level of meaningful dissection. More objectively ... the Tweet does not involve policy, it's not political, it's not controversial, it's not 'before the courts', it does not involve foreign policy, it's not 'insensitive or offensive', it doesn't delve into economic matters, it's not related to health or elections, it won't move markets or affect business - and most appropriately - it's essentially factual. It's a banal, truthful statement about some secondary, bureaucratic outcome. If we were to apply this level of conscientious scrutiny to every Tweet or statement, I don't think anyone would ever agree on what 'reality' is. So there is no 'there' there. There's nothing to escalate. We have a free press to add more context, that's their job. Tweets can cause 'harm' obviously, when influential people lie about material things especially related to health, violence, ultra bigotry/racism, political insurrection etc. but otherwise, Twitter is a random tech company, it's beyond their purview to selectively contextualize arbitrary bits of information.