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

Tom,
You suggested that, that in response to a challenge to a statement made on
an *ethical* site:

> "3. the statement is removed until the poster gets a link that supports
> it."


You appear to be proposing a process similar to that now used in the US for
DMCA copyright infringement challenges. The problem is, of course, that
we've found that specious claims of infringement can force a platform to
pull down content until the poster has had a chance to review and object to
invalid infringement claims. This sometimes inappropriately removes
legitimate content for at least a period of time and imposes a burden on
authors to be vigilant in following up on DMCA challenges. As the EFF
said, DMCA
"takedown notices often result in censorship of perfectly legal content."
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/absurd-automated-notices-illustrate-abuse-dmca-takedown-process>
Given
that we've seen that an automatic take-down or removal creates an easily
gamed process, I'm not sure it would be wise to recreate it in other
contexts.

bob wyman


On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:39 AM 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
>> > >
>>
>>