Having SM treat misinformation pieces as "fake news" and deboost/hide/cleverly manage feeds of ppl who share them does not unpublish them.
It's not "overruling NYT". It's treating all media equally rather than giving NYT exemption based on historic reputation.
-
-
And there is absolutely nothing problematic about acting to prevent propagation of misinformation in a transparent manner.
-
Except it's not transparent. It's deferring judgement from editors at publications to super-editors at tech cos who also have biases.
-
It's transparent if you follow my (1) and (2) from earlier in this thread.
-
Biases can be transparent; transparent here means they're documented in a public place, where people can judge and respond to them.
-
Would you feel the same way if those biases leaned strongly away from your views on important topics?
-
That's a complex topic, but in other areas on SM those biases already lean strongly opposite way.
-
Things like trans users getting banned for "real names policy", BF pics banned, vicious harassment dismissed as "not a ToS violation".
-
There's no such thing as lack of bias; the best we can hope for and demand is transparent bias in the right directions.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.