3 ms·
The argument seems fairly straight-forward: Twitter has a definition for what they consider state-affiliated media. NPR doesn't fit this definition. Thus, if t
by Timon3 4y ago
The argument seems fairly straight-forward:
Twitter has a definition for what they consider state-affiliated media. NPR doesn't fit this definition. Thus, if they brand them as state-affiliated, they are not going from their own definition, and they must have other reasons.
Why is it acceptable for Twitter to have a definition of state-affiliated media, and then apply the branding to a media organisation that doesn't fit this definition?
Or are you just saying that there isn't a difference between state-affiliated media, and state-funded media?
- codeddesign 4y agoI believe you are arguing semantics. I am arguing that it’s fair. Whether it’s Fox News or Washing Post. If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms. The title of the label is a different discussion in which I agree with your last sentence.
- Timon3 4y agoI'm not arguing semantics in any way. Hypocrisy isn't a semantic problem. You, on the other hand, are literally arguing semantics, since you're ignoring Twitters own definition, and just going by colloquial meanings. > If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms. I fully agree, they should be labeled as per Twitter terms. The Twitter terms clearly stated that NPR was not an example of state-affiliated media. It's problematic that Twitter labeled in a way contrary to their terms.