>>But then, should Twitter have opted for more false negatives than false positives? I don't think so. 100% yes. The process used by multi-billion dollar globa

>>But then, should Twitter have opted for more false negatives than false positives? I don't think so. 100% yes. The process used by multi-billion dollar global communication platforms for fact-checking should not be this sloppy, where they themselves become purveyors of misinformation in marking accurate information as misleading. It's one thing for some regular Joe Blow to post misinformation. It's another for the party with the full weight/authority of being the platform provider, and all of the credibility that comes with that, to post misinformation.