3 ms·
I'm skeptical that using a wikipedia-like approach will work for small, essentially ephemeral content. There's just not enough time to debate each tweet, espec
by z9znz 4y ago
I'm skeptical that using a wikipedia-like approach will work for small, essentially ephemeral content. There's just not enough time to debate each tweet, especially now that so many people (with large followings) tweet so much debatable content frequently. There's probably also not enough interest... or the interest and fascination with moderating will wane quickly (fatique).
Reading the various recent news items about Twitter, one would think that Musk was trying to revert the company to a crowdsource startup. I don't think that's possible, at least not without shedding a great many of the users. Of course, I also think the entire system and premise behind Twitter is bunk, so it doesn't really matter.
- mistermann 4y agoI don't think there's necessarily a need to fact check every tweet. If fact checks are maintained in a list, and one can navigate from a user account to their position in the list which also shows their past history of fact checked falsehoods/untruthfulness/lying, it could make a difference. I think the general public is intelligent enough to start to come up with strategies to target the most influential people (politicians, journalists, activists, celebrities, etc) and work down from there. Of course, fact checking is a complicated skill, but people can learn new skills. The public learning new skills on social media on an ongoing basis may be problematic for some people, but it could be very healthy for the overall ecosystem.