4 ms·
Did you RTFA? Roth was directly quoted by the post. > In October 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election, the team added context to all trends that could
by MAGZine 4y ago
Did you RTFA? Roth was directly quoted by the post.
> In October 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election, the team added context to all trends that could be found in Twitter’s prime real estate — its “For you” and “What’s happening” boxes — on its app and website. As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms.
> But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs.
It's hard to know where exactly the cuts were made inside of the trust and safety org, and even how twitter is laid out internally to know whether (or how) if trust and safety intersects with departments paying attention to information ops.
anecdotally, i've seen at least a few people working in those areas laid off.
- simondotau 4y agoAt this moment I see no reason to consider The Washington Post a more credible source than a Twitter employee whose name is known.
- MAGZine 4y agoI'm not sure what point you're making. The whole point in either case is that what is being reported is accurate and verified. I think Twitter moderation these days is pretty transparent and fact-based when they take action.
- simondotau 4y agoThe point I'm making is to question whether we should take the Washington Post article more seriously than direct statements from named employees. The article is making assertions based on claims made by anonymous people who claim to be Twitter employees, and that either through malice or stupidity or "telephone" style information loss, there are countless ways that this article can end up being wrong. And precisely to your earlier point, the article encourages the reader to fill in the blanks about what various departments existed, what their roles are, whether they have direct, indirect, or no effects on the material on Twitter. There is nothing accurate nor verified about any of that. It's all intentionally hazy, and contributes to the article's overt desire to push a specific narrative rather than provide clarity.
- MAGZine 4y agoThe thing is, I generally trust established media organizations to fact-check because their integrity and reputation depends on it. Facts are often cross-checked and verified prior to publishing. Journalists have a vested interest in preventing their publications from 'he-said-she-said' rags. Do I trust a twitter figurehead, who clearly has tweeted this for Elon's sake, more than a journalistic enterprise? No, actually. I think there's a lot to read between the lines. My questions actually came FROM the twitter thread. The article filled in more holes that the twitter thread left open.
- simondotau 4y agoA rebuttal in two parts: 1. Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect[1] 2. Ligma Johnson[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes... [2] https://www.wionews.com/world/ligma-johnson-two-pranksters-posing-as-laid-off-twitter-employees-trick-media-outlets-529479 https://www.wionews.com/world/ligma-johnson-two-pranksters-p...