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

It looks like Birdwatch could use some "content moderation" on the content
moderation notes that it is collecting... Would this be meta-moderation?

Of the four example Recent Notes <https://twitter.com/i/birdwatch> that
Twitter has posted, two of them include ratings and comments that appear to
me to require a bit of moderation.

   - A tweet about a "Red Ford insurrection"
   <https://twitter.com/UnSubtleDesi/status/1354510312146313216> (should be
   "Red Fort"), is labeled:
       "Misinformed, or potentially misleading, Its being wrongly portrayed
   as an insurrection , trying to instigate hateful sentiment."
   Of course, the definition of "insurrection" is very subjective as is the
   noters' views on the motivation for the use of the word. Much of the Indian
   news coverage of the event does, in fact, use the term "insurrection."
   - A tweet about Bernie Sanders Inaugural mittens
   <https://twitter.com/AP/status/1354522856915410950> is labeled:
       "Misinformed, or potentially misleading, Despite raising money for
   charity the women’s business closed unable to be profitable with high
   taxes."
   I can find no evidence that any business associated with the mitten
   maker closed due to high taxes. When I search this subject, I find only
   that the woman who made the mittens says that she is swamped by the demand
   for similar mittens.

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that content ratings are just as
controversial, and just as prone to include errors or prevarication, as the
content they describe. I believe this is one reason that individual readers
should have the ability to choose whose ratings should be trusted. I can't
see any way that any set of reviewers could possibly be accepted as
objective by all readers.

bob wyman

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:37 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
>
>