>With the stakes being as high as they are, wouldn’t we want to know if there’s a crumb of truth to the allegations?
Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter. Letting the unverified and extremely suspicious story spread on twitter does nothing to bring us closer to the truth. On the contrary, the truth is harmed by the unchecked spread of misinformation because the truth doesn't have the same viral quality as lies.
> Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter.
I agree with this, but I think Facebook & Twitter shot themselves in the foot by allowing rampant & salacious accusatory headlines to run across their platform unhindered during the past 4 years. There are numerous examples from alleged pee tapes to collusion, and general he said she said.
I agree with that. But the issue is how do you stop people from talking about an alleged pee tape compared to stopping the spread of a specific story from a handful of sources. These are two very different problems. So I have sympathy for the position they are in and the difficulty in being consistent with their policies given the vast range of ways manipulative information can be spread.
Super weird, was suddenly downvoted on both comments twice, but anyways
> So I have sympathy for the position they are in and the difficulty in being consistent with their policies given the vast range of ways manipulative information can be spread.
I think the true test will be how this is held up in the future. Of course we're in the middle of an insane political divide, but eventually we'll be past it, and next time there will be new candidates, and each time beyond that. So the litmus test will be whether the rules are fair and applied equally as time goes on.
Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter. Letting the unverified and extremely suspicious story spread on twitter does nothing to bring us closer to the truth. On the contrary, the truth is harmed by the unchecked spread of misinformation because the truth doesn't have the same viral quality as lies.