Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
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.
|
Would seem to me that the same people who have demonstrated numeric illiteracy throughout Covid continue to do so here. Without some type of consistent numbers as to efficacy or non- of Twitter's attempts to combat misinformation (and governments'), a bunch of individual anecdotes are just more of the same from that crowd.
Also - yeah - coming up with a way to successfully combat junk information that contributes to large-scale societal harm would be tricky. I'm glad I wasn't in charge of that product at Twitter lol. Imagine trying to come up with a way to teach your thousands of Filipino customer support staff how to differentiate between harmful misinformation and valid free speech. In - like - a couple weeks. After being threatened by the government. No thanks.