3 ms·
> That seems strictly worse, to me. If you have a good tweet with a bad note, you have 1 piece of good info and 1 piece of bad info. If you have 10 tweets with
by snakeboy 3y ago
> That seems strictly worse, to me. If you have a good tweet with a bad note, you have 1 piece of good info and 1 piece of bad info. If you have 10 tweets with bad info and no notes, you have 10 pieces of bad info.
In the isolated case, sure, but the point is that in the long-run it's more useful to maintain a non-partisan reputation, otherwise it becomes as useless as fact-checkers are. Bad community notes corrodes public trust in them.
> if you want to spread misinformation on Twitter and trivially defeat the lame mitigation that is Community Notes, you just need to make it controversial.
The goal is that the Notes themselves are not controversial. You can have a non-controversial Community Note attached to a controversial tweet.
- tetrep 3y agoYou are correct that Community Notes doesn't work if things are controversial, which is why I called it a "lame mitigation" against misinformation. My point is that non-controversial is not strongly correlated with the truth. So if you want to avoid the truth in a Community Note, like China's treatment of Ugyhurs, you just need to make it controversial so that it is automatically removed by the algorithm.
- yorwba 3y agoTrue statements may not necessarily be non-controversial, but that doesn't mean there aren't less-controversial ways to state the truth. For example, I think the fact that the Xinjiang United Front published http://web.archive.org/web/20201115143615/http://www.xjtzb.gov.cn/2017-06/19/c_1121167392.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20201115143615/http://www.xjtzb.g... and kept it online for three years is less controversial to establish than whether a genocide necessarily involves mass murder, and serves just as well to contextualize the original tweet.