
Twitter to begin labeling 'state-affiliated media outlets' - AndrewBissell
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/twitter-labeling-state-affiliated-media-outlets-392264
======
AndrewBissell
Some state-affiliated media which Twitter has elected not to label:

[https://twitter.com/VOANews](https://twitter.com/VOANews)
[https://twitter.com/RFERL](https://twitter.com/RFERL)

------
gentleman11
Will this include CBC, bbc, etc? What about media outlets that receive
subsidies? Further, Noam Chomsky in manufacturing consent makes a good
argument that the entire media is coopted simply by the fact that governments
and corporations can selectively provide access to interviews or statements,
or provide good video capture opportunities, which incentivized you to fall in
line. Trump does this a lot more explicitly than anybody in the past but it
was a thing previously too. Harper in Canada was attempting this before he got
voted out in a huge strategic voting push one election

Or is this just a way of saying they will flag Chinese and Russian
connections?

~~~
jcranmer
From the article:

> The labels will go on the accounts for China Daily, Russia Today, Sputnik
> and other media outlets, a Twitter spokesperson said. But not Voice of
> America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, two media outlets funded by the
> U.S. government, or NPR and the BBC. The blog post described NPR and the BBC
> as “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence.”

~~~
ibejoeb
Okey-doke. Twitter is really flirting with the business end of section 230.

~~~
tptacek
I don't see how? People believe weird things about 230.

~~~
ibejoeb
First, it's not just this move, but it certainly contributes. I think it's
fine to label state-influenced accounts, but why not do it across the board
and label _all_ state-influenced accounts? BBC is state media. NPR is state
media and is constantly accused of bias, as is the CPB.

Twitter also does not specify how they make the determination other than to
say that it consulted some unnamed members of their Trust & Safety Council.
That thing is a mess in itself, and counts the ridiculous Dangerous Speech
Project among its members.

All of this is to say Twitter is not only opining on the content, but clearly
exercising control over what is published.

~~~
tptacek
You're not answering my question. What exactly does this have to do with 230?
Twitter can label you the Easter Bunny and still rely on 230. People seem to
believe that activate moderation contravenes 230, but that is obviously not
true. Is there some other 230 concern I'm missing?

