Re: Twitter Birdwatch: user annotation for credibility, truth, etc.

Sadly trusted is subjective because, as history has shown, people will use "data" to their own means. See eugenics and scientific racism (both proven false and still upheld as truth by a lot of people).

So no, it won't since this is a place that demands validation and results and it's harder to be a bigot in 2021 (thankfully or I'd be dead thanks to racism and xenophobia).

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, at 20:28, Tom Jones wrote:
> this will wind up as a fight between the lablers of the left and the right.
> would it not be better to ask users to post to a trusted source instead?
> Peace ..tom
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 5:38 PM Bob Wyman <> wrote:
> > Today, Twitter launched Birdwatch <> a system which, I think, should be relevant to the work of this group:
> > 
> >> "Birdwatch allows people to identify information in Tweets they believe is misleading and write notes that provide informative context. We believe this approach has the potential to respond quickly when misleading information spreads, adding context that people trust and find valuable. Eventually we aim to make notes visible directly on Tweets for the global Twitter audience, when there is consensus from a broad and diverse set of contributors." Keith Coleman, Twitter Vice President of Product in "Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation <>."
> > 
> > Has anyone had a chance to review Birdwatch? What do you think?
> > 
> > Useful links:
> >  * Birdwatch Guide on GitHub <>
> >  * Birdwatch on Twitter <> (signup to trial, see recent annotated tweets, etc.)
> >  * Birdwatch Announcement <>
> >  bob wyman
> >

Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2021 04:49:44 UTC