What it aims to do is nullify the social media advantage that would otherwise be enjoyed by such misinformation.
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.
-
Or better, to not centralize the bias into giant monopolies of super-editors. Have diverse sets of publishers and keep the platforms neutral
- 2 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.