> Disinformation researchers have spent years asking Twitter to remove toxic and fake posts.
Putting aside "fake posts" for a second and the clear difficulty in establishing objective truth on a topic, the first line brings up 2 big questions for me.
1) What in the world is a "disinformation researcher"? Is this a newspeak word for activist?
2) What on Earth is a toxic post and why are "disinformation researchers" focusing on removing toxic posts rather than disinformation?
EDIT: Please feel free to continue to downvote my comment if you think I'm wrong for even asking, but I remain curious, and my questions still stand.
From my anecdotal point of view, twitter's moderation system has never been better. No more false positives and seemingly no false negatives? Twitter has improved so much, I can see discussions on twitter. It's great.
>Santos says that until Musk’s takeover, Twitter had been “quite responsive” in taking down rule-breaking content that could undermine trust in the election or
This is truly horrible. Amazingly, Musk has reached bond-level evil in within one week and burned 44B dollars in doing so.
They are allowed to say what they want and worse, question the narrative on that website now! Luckily, there's parler.
Putting aside "fake posts" for a second and the clear difficulty in establishing objective truth on a topic, the first line brings up 2 big questions for me.
1) What in the world is a "disinformation researcher"? Is this a newspeak word for activist?
2) What on Earth is a toxic post and why are "disinformation researchers" focusing on removing toxic posts rather than disinformation?
EDIT: Please feel free to continue to downvote my comment if you think I'm wrong for even asking, but I remain curious, and my questions still stand.