It’s possible to have bias without editorialising, as far as I know Twitter only hides, deletes or bans. It doesn’t edit, the fact checking is appending.
How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
> How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
Hi, I think you're wrong. Here's the proof: I haven't edited your comment, but by replying I have just appended a statement to it without your permission.
But it can change the meaning. For instance, if I write a tweet that says "I like the joker character" and twitter appends my tweet saying "People that like joker might shoot up a movie theater", you've changed the intent and meaning completely from what was intended... The media tends to do this kind of thing a lot when they take a speech and add their own commentary to change what was said. Appending/elaborating on what someone says makes them your words, not the original authors.
> But it can change the meaning. For instance, if I write a tweet that says "I like the joker character" and twitter appends my tweet saying "People that like joker might shoot up a movie theater", you've changed the intent and meaning completely from what was intended...
So? No one has a "right to the last word," so that when they speak, everyone else has to shut up so their words will be the exclusive influence on their audience.
It's important for free speech that people be able to point out when someone has lied or spread misinformation.
That's certainly wrong. A reply by an ordinary user using the ordinary mechanism is a very different thing than an official editorial note which carries the imprimatur of the platform. And of course they added code to hide it by default, which is an additional level of control which beyond any sort of replying.
They don't have to change the original wording to exercise editorial judgment and power. This seems kind of obvious?
> That's certainly wrong. A reply by an ordinary user using the ordinary mechanism is a very different thing than an official editorial note which carries the imprimatur of the platform.
Sorry, no, It's not wrong. Twitter's reply using a new mechanism it created may be different than one made by an ordinary user, but that difference doesn't turn their reply into an edit.
> And of course they added code to hide it by default, which is an additional level of control which beyond any sort of replying.
Yes, and it's their right to do that.
> They don't have to change the original wording to exercise editorial judgment and power. This seems kind of obvious?
I never said they weren't moderating their platform (which they have every right to do in any way they see fit). I was merely disputing the weird conflation of "reply" with "edit."
There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".
Have I edited the painting and created a new painting? Is it a single art, or a separate painting and a comment? Do I need additional copyright permissions to create a derivative work, or can I use a painting licensed under Creative Common no derivative in order to create my own version of the Treachery of Images? When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
> There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".
You're wondering off and getting lost in the weeds with your example.
Twitter replied on its platform using a new mechanism that it created. Trying to twist that reply into an "edit" (with the implication that it's some kind of illegitimate corruption of the work replied to) is drifting towards a denial of free speech and other nonsensical implications.
> When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
> Understanding section 230’s history is essential to informing the current debate about the law. And that history tells us that one of the main reasons for enacting section 230 was to encourage online services to moderate content....
> Section 230’s “findings” states that the internet offers “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” Nothing in section 230’s history, however, suggests that this goal requires platforms to be “neutral.” Indeed, section 230 allows platforms to develop different content standards, and customers ultimately can determine whether those standards meet their expectations. [Emphasis mine.]
According to section 230, it is only relevant if it changes the meaning of the original content. If it's clearly different content, then it's clearly different content.
