- From: Sherif Hanna <sherif@truepic.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:57:21 -0800
- To: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jacky Alcine <yo@jacky.wtf>, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF-YutfGnEkoRzpwPNd357mZx-dvaZhntzOp+ivzscCLVsL8xg@mail.gmail.com>
Seems like Twitter is taking a Wikipedia-like approach with community-based moderation? Sherif Hanna | VP of R&D Recent Press: NBC News <https://nbcnews.to/35hyo0U> | Fast Company <https://bit.ly/349L9LC> | WIRED <https://bit.ly/35d2wKP> | CNET <https://cnet.co/3dNplc8> | Axios <https://bit.ly/3lZxkpi> | Protocol <https://bit.ly/356rYl6> | Android Central <https://bit.ly/3ke4bpZ> | Android Police <https://bit.ly/35d8Din> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:40 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com> wrote: > sorry - i misspoke. > let's try again. > 1. some statement is made on an ethical web site. > 2. the statement is challenged by whatever means that site allows. > 3. the statement is removed until the poster gets a link that supports it. > (note i did not say trusted this time.) > 4.The statement is reposted with the link. > 5. now anyone that sees the statement can make their own evaluation as to > the trustworthiness of the link. > > Peace ..tom > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:48 PM Jacky Alcine <yo@jacky.wtf> wrote: > >> 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 <bob@wyman.us> wrote: >> > > Today, Twitter launched Birdwatch < >> https://twitter.github.io/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 < >> https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation.html >> >." >> > > >> > > Has anyone had a chance to review Birdwatch? What do you think? >> > > >> > > Useful links: >> > > * Birdwatch Guide on GitHub <https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/> >> > > * Birdwatch on Twitter <https://twitter.com/i/birdwatch> (signup to >> trial, see recent annotated tweets, etc.) >> > > * Birdwatch Announcement < >> https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation.html >> > >> > > bob wyman >> > > >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2021 05:57:45 UTC