Twitter is experimenting with adding brightly colored labels directly beneath lies and misinformation posted by politicians and public figures, according to a leaked demo of new features sent to NBC News.
My R&D into URLs and content classification started in 2004. Community-based solutions don't work.
I do have a solution that could work = a tokenized economy that provides a financial incentive for people not to spoil the quality of the data.
MetaCert built this last year BTW. https://t.co/sXlRrl8lnPhttps://t.co/EF0UEZ4EAH
RT @mrddmia: Does this mean that “woke” liberal @Twitter contractors, working from their bedrooms in their parents’ basements, are going to police and censor (conservative) political speech?
What could possibly go wrong here? https://t.co/izkeLTIoaO
What could go wrong...
This will be used as a tool for censorship, regardless of what side you're on. The way to combat bad ideas and bad informtion is good ideas and good information. Not squirreling it away in a corner to fester.
This will backfire spectacularly because they’ll hire humans, who are inherently biased to make that list of what gets the bright patches of color. The most active people on Twitter, be it leftists or centrists or rightists twist their facts. But, twitter has a left leaning bias. The right will be pissed and they’ll cry about censorship. Twitter will feign innocence. People will be offended thereby making them tweet more, cue in - more misinformation.
We know there was is missinformation everywhere. I think it's dangerous to allow a corporation to be in charge of the filter. Anything they don't agree with suddenly becomes misinformation. I don't care what you want to say. Your right to say it is important.
Agree with you that misinformation isn't equal. There are facts and then there is conjecture or opinions. Those aren't facts.
It is like listening to an article on the news and they present facts. Why they think we are in a particular mess is an opinion. Granted a lot of news mixing facts and opinions. I wish there was a clear delineation. Even if I happen to agree with an opinion, I want the fact to be indisputable and the rest to be a perspective. We can agree or disagree on opinions but the facts are very specific. Man was killed fact. We THINK this person did it. That is an opinion. We think they did it for this reason. Also opinion, Was killed with blunt instrument. Fact. We think it was a candlestick. Opinion until proven. In a library. Was the body found in the library? Fact until shown that Mr Body was killed elsewhere and then moved. Being slightly silly but providing a specific example of fact versus opinion,
It seems like this inevitably/necessarily gets into George Orwell territory. It would be interesting to hear various arguments/predictions about whether this should be expected to be a net positive or negative. Obviously, the devil is in the implementation details.