4 ms·

Unless we're listing out all the sources of funding the various media organizations have, what would be the new use of this label if not to say "watch out"?

by qgin 4y ago

xienze 4y ago
The use should have always been to simply note which sources are affiliated in some way with a state government, not to be a subtle attack on sources that Twitter doesn’t like. Affiliation doesn’t mean “controlled by”, it means there is a link between the two. NPR takes some amount of taxpayer money. Like it or not, they are affiliated with the US government. Same with the BBC and the UK. This wouldn’t have even been a big deal if Twitter had originally been direct with labeling, instead of trying to hide double meaning within labels that can act as dogwhistles. Should Twitter as it stands today, apply the label more universally? Sure. But the fact that it didn’t in the past ties back to the original point, that Twitter wanted to label certain outlets as being propaganda mouthpieces while at the same time being able to hide behind “hey, we didn’t say _propaganda_, we just said _state affiliated!_”
- qgin 4y ago
  They never tried to hide any double meaning. It was pretty explicit when they launched the label: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-labels-for-government-and-state-affiliated-media-accounts https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-label... > Unlike independent media, state-affiliated media frequently use their news coverage as a means to advance a political agenda. We believe that people have the right to know when a media account is affiliated directly or indirectly with a state actor. State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, will not be labeled.

4 ms·

Unless we're listing out all the sources of funding the various media organizations have, what would be the new use of this label if not to say "watch out"?

by qgin 4y ago

Unless we're listing out all the sources of funding the various media organizations have, what would be the new use of this label if not to say "watch out"?

xienze 4y ago
The use should have always been to simply note which sources are affiliated in some way with a state government, not to be a subtle attack on sources that Twitter doesn’t like. Affiliation doesn’t mean “controlled by”, it means there is a link between the two. NPR takes some amount of taxpayer money. Like it or not, they are affiliated with the US government. Same with the BBC and the UK. This wouldn’t have even been a big deal if Twitter had originally been direct with labeling, instead of trying to hide double meaning within labels that can act as dogwhistles. Should Twitter as it stands today, apply the label more universally? Sure. But the fact that it didn’t in the past ties back to the original point, that Twitter wanted to label certain outlets as being propaganda mouthpieces while at the same time being able to hide behind “hey, we didn’t say _propaganda_, we just said _state affiliated!_”
- qgin 4y ago
  They never tried to hide any double meaning. It was pretty explicit when they launched the label: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-labels-for-government-and-state-affiliated-media-accounts https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-label... > Unlike independent media, state-affiliated media frequently use their news coverage as a means to advance a political agenda. We believe that people have the right to know when a media account is affiliated directly or indirectly with a state actor. State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, will not be labeled.