4 ms·
For important context, this isn't new (it started a couple of years ago I believe), and has not been introduced by the new owner. It is not related to outsourci
by samwillis 4y ago
For important context, this isn't new (it started a couple of years ago I believe), and has not been introduced by the new owner. It is not related to outsourcing work to unpaid volunteers that was previously done by paid employees who have been made redundant during the layoffs over the last few days.
- blitzar 4y ago> this isn't new (it started a couple of years ago I believe) 4 CEOs have supported this project ... so far.
- cpach 4y agoHuh! Never heard of it before.
- aaron695 4y ago> done by paid employees who have been made redundant Could you cite this. I'm not saying you are a liar pushing misinformation, but it's fair and important that you link the proof I think. For instance we know Keith Coleman wasn't sacked and Musk said the project is awesome https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587798343622737925 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587798343622737925 so your fact is surprising. We should be able to read for ourselves. Especially if we tell other people this information it allows us to link back. A chain of facts. If you know it personally, that also gives us context.
- sgerenser 4y agoPoster you’re replying to said it’s not replacing work done by paid, now laid off, employees.
- iinnPP 4y agoIt is worded in a way that 'can' imply that there has been a switch from paid worker to unpaid volunteer. 'it is not related to X' suggests that X exists in order to be the subject of such a relation.
- samwillis 4y agoI didn't intend for my comment to be interpreted that way, I don't think most people are. But you are right, I could have phrased it better. There has been a lot of rumour and speculation about the moderation teams being sacked. I don't know what's true, but it does sound like they may have had fewer redundancies than in other departments. But what we do know is this "birdwatch" initiative isn't related to it if it has happened. The post has been made with an editorialised title implying that this is new. Nowhere on the linked page does it say it is new. In the context of this week, and the rumours, it would imply that they are connected. They are not. The post smells a little like someone generating clickbait for karma.
- keewee7 4y agoBirdwatch is not new but this is new: >Birdwatch doesn’t work by majority rules. To identify notes that are helpful to a wide range of people, Birdwatch ratings requires agreement between contributors who have sometimes disagreed in their past ratings. This helps prevent one-sided ratings. This is something Elon Musk tweeted out recently. He seems to think that agreement on topic B by people who previously disagreed on topic A means they must be right on topic B.
- pjkundert 4y agoNo, it means diversity of opinion.
- keewee7 4y agoKeep the "diversity of opinion" in the tweets but not in the fact checking.
- claytongulick 4y agoHow?
- lumost 4y agoWould like to see some data on this, but it sounds like an effective rating system. I’d be concerned that getting statistical significance would be challenging without creating pseudo pairs of labelers likely to disagree on issues.
- keewee7 4y agoIn Europe the political fringes, the far-left and far-right, disagree about almost everything. But they have also agreed on a lot of things like being anti-EU and pro-Russia. Elon Musk's system will consider their opinions about the EU and Russia to be more correct than that of other users.
- 4y ago
- dang 4y agoYes, we've taken "new" out of the title now.
- spdustin 4y agoI’m not an employee, and I’ve been a Birdwatch contributor since shortly after the feature was first introduced.