Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
I see that as a company doing their best to moderate a large volume of false information using the best tools they have with all the flaws of people and protocol. And a government trying to tackle the problem of misinformation.
Missing from that entire article (assuming that all the listed misleading content was in fact factual and not misleading, note they don’t say it’s false so misleading is a much broader standard) was a comparison to the amount of fake content removed successfully. Essentially the goal of this work on Twitter was to remove content that was contributing to people dying. So how accurate was the tool. What % of tweets screens as misleading or false were in fact misleading or false.
I think the one example of showing the graph on myocarditis was misleading as declared by twitter as it lack all context in which to interpret the information. Sending out compartmentalized factual information without proper context can be misleading.