This explains why I was struck with the "hey, I read it before." In fact, someone told me about it and my reaction was "wait, are you talking about something new or old?" A link and a short phrase acknowledging that the documents published and analyzed before was mandatory here. https://twitter.com/josephfcox/status/1078443875784683521 …
-
-
It's puzzling and I can't help but wonder how Fisher justified justified the decision not to refer to the previous reporting. That said, the NYT article definitely has a different focus from the MB piece, and a different angle.
-
That's why a small nod and acknowledgment that various versions of these documents have been published and analyzed was both mandatory and would've taken nothing from new angles/work. Those rules were changed since this, too, but still good context https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Baffling? You haven’t been paying attention. This is
@nytimes standards operating procedure. And probably not the reporter’s fault.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems like Hollywood Studio MO.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.