4 ms·

I don't like this at all. The thing that bothers me is the UI appearance of authority. If they found a good algorithmic way to add context, apply it to twits th

I don't like this at all. The thing that bothers me is the UI appearance of authority. If they found a good algorithmic way to add context, apply it to twits themselves. Opaque assertions of authority are a dark pattern. Getting someone's "context" stuck on your words when it's just another person's opinion, but your voice has an origin and their voice is given an authoritative appearance without origin feels bad. It tricks people into being more trusting than they should.

netfl0 4y ago
Do you have a specific example where this is tricking people?
- Spivak 4y ago
  It’s not tricking people on purpose but it’s trying to distill information that can’t be distilled. > true but grossly misleading statement said specifically to capitalize on the wrong conclusion people will make about it. > - Every Politician Fact Checker: “seems legit”
  - netfl0 4y ago
    Did you have an issue with Twitter adding the ”context”, based on their delegated authority’s opinion, to tweets prior to this?
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Assuming we’re in a world where fact checking by the platform in some capacity makes sense then this then this feels like the right way to do it. Another way would letting fact checking by an extension of the report feature where you can say, “woah this needs some context” and write a reply or link to your article discussing the issue. And the Twitter moderators just decide whether to show it in the privileged spot with attribution. Bonus if the moderators can highlight a person’s credentials if they happen to be an expert in the topic or directly related to the events.
potatototoo99 4y ago
It's not just someone else's opinion, it's agreed upon opinion. The alternative is the authoritative approach.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  The alternative is not using the platform's voice to privilege viewpoints at all.
- logifail 4y ago
  > It's not just someone else's opinion, it's agreed upon opinion Q: Agreed upon by whom? I'm reminded of this quotation: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." which The Big Short (2015) says is Twain but I gather probably isn't.
- zzzeek 4y ago
  the most important issues are those where there is no agreement. i've already seen some birdwatch "fact checks" that were much more misleading than the thing they were "fact checking"
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  No, the alterative is that the opinion is voiced by someone specific, anonymous or not, with everyone's intuition about people saying things coming into account. The way it's implemented, the opinion is practically anonymous, with no one accountable for it, but given a false cover of authority. If the context is an article by someone, I don't mind if the algorithm somehow finds the relevant twit by the relevant journalist who authored that article, and tends to show them together, as equals. That's fine by me. I disagree with the UI choice of giving visual significance to a specific opinion.

netfl0 4y ago

Do you have a specific example where this is tricking people?

Spivak 4y ago
It’s not tricking people on purpose but it’s trying to distill information that can’t be distilled. > true but grossly misleading statement said specifically to capitalize on the wrong conclusion people will make about it. > - Every Politician Fact Checker: “seems legit”
- netfl0 4y ago
  Did you have an issue with Twitter adding the ”context”, based on their delegated authority’s opinion, to tweets prior to this?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Assuming we’re in a world where fact checking by the platform in some capacity makes sense then this then this feels like the right way to do it. Another way would letting fact checking by an extension of the report feature where you can say, “woah this needs some context” and write a reply or link to your article discussing the issue. And the Twitter moderators just decide whether to show it in the privileged spot with attribution. Bonus if the moderators can highlight a person’s credentials if they happen to be an expert in the topic or directly related to the events.

potatototoo99 4y ago

It's not just someone else's opinion, it's agreed upon opinion. The alternative is the authoritative approach.

Karunamon 4y ago
The alternative is not using the platform's voice to privilege viewpoints at all.
logifail 4y ago
> It's not just someone else's opinion, it's agreed upon opinion Q: Agreed upon by whom? I'm reminded of this quotation: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." which The Big Short (2015) says is Twain but I gather probably isn't.
zzzeek 4y ago
the most important issues are those where there is no agreement. i've already seen some birdwatch "fact checks" that were much more misleading than the thing they were "fact checking"
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
No, the alterative is that the opinion is voiced by someone specific, anonymous or not, with everyone's intuition about people saying things coming into account. The way it's implemented, the opinion is practically anonymous, with no one accountable for it, but given a false cover of authority. If the context is an article by someone, I don't mind if the algorithm somehow finds the relevant twit by the relevant journalist who authored that article, and tends to show them together, as equals. That's fine by me. I disagree with the UI choice of giving visual significance to a specific opinion.