
Updating our approach to misleading information - hhs
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html
======
OnlineHeaven
We are one step closer to implementing the long awaited social credit system
in the USA. Yay I can’t wait!

------
jart
Thank you Nick Pickles and Yoel Roth for helping Twitter join the scientific
research process. Where will your findings on what is/isn't true be published?

------
tal8d
This gets funnier everyday, the hamfisted editorializing. If you want to
capitalize on user generated content, while also being shielded from the legal
consequences of user generated content, you can't insert editor's notes.

~~~
Nasrudith
That is utterly wrong. The dichotomy doesn't exist and is not anything "new"
but the exact intended function of Section 230.

~~~
tal8d
> ..exact intended function of Section 230.

Interesting, the deferral to the intent of the law's author - it kind of makes
the whole argument about the second amendment seem silly. That would be a
dangerous game to play in this case though, given the fact that 230 is a small
part of the much larger product of the mid 90's moral panic - the
Communications Decency Act. Courts have ruled pretty narrowly on the issue of
editorializing and 230 protections, but in cases of defamation they've made it
clear that so long as the edits don't alter the meaning - they're protected.
At the same time, courts have made it clear that simply changing the context
on another's work can be enough to constitute fair-use and effectively create
a new work. Those aren't compatible ideas.

The purpose of these tags is to alter the underlying message, they even admit
it - they wouldn't function as intended otherwise. I think the funniest
example I've seen of this was a 1970s documentary about our imminent
destruction by way of global cooling, narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Youtube's
little wrong-thought tag helpfully informed me of our imminent destruction by
way of global warming.

------
thepangolino
Next logical step will be only accepting links to whitelisted domains.

------
annadane
Okay, now how about not having your design be terrible?

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

~~~
annadane
I'm just mad at Twitter, because they should know better _especially_ with
their interface and how simple it was.

~~~
dang
(I agree and use the Minimal Twitter extension.)

