3 ms·
We both know that this will be applied against will be applied universally to more nuanced scenarios than that. It shouldn’t be. More often the “fact-check” is
by twodave 4y ago
We both know that this will be applied against will be applied universally to more nuanced scenarios than that. It shouldn’t be.
More often the “fact-check” is synonymous with “what we know based on publicly-available information” than what is objectively true (or, as more often is the issue, what is untrue). This basically rules out anyone from being able to credibly whistleblow/call attention to something known only by a few that would be incendiary if it became widely known. Knowing and proving are often in different arenas, and I don’t think constraining conversation to only facts that can be checked is helpful for genuine discourse.
- naasking 4y agoI don't think this constrains the conversations that can happen on Twitter, so much as adding "context" to any conversation. The context that something is not provable using publicly available information although some people claim to know it's factual status is also valuable, and I agree this nuance would ideally be available in that "context".