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

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."
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

bob wyman

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

> 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 <> 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 <> 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 22:50:45 UTC