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 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
These documents have been around and published and analyzed in couple of other outlets, too. It's a good story that adds more reporting (and we need a lot!) but it's just baffling that there's not even a small acknowledgement of previous *significant* work on same documents.
3 replies 7 retweets 54 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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 …
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.