Twitter Finally Adds a Fact Checking Warning Label to Trump Tweets

[Deepak]

There was a web browser add-in (since deleted) that processed any news page you were on and added a red square around the names of authors and by-lines of people known to have a Jewish background. That add-in was deleted, though it seems to me all it was doing was adding information that people were free to ignore.

I'm not going to care much whether Facebook or Twitter (I don't really use the latter) adds 'fact-checking' to their list of 'services', though it would be annoying more than anything. Perhaps they'll give people the option to turn it off, or perhaps there will be some codenerds that can hack it and turn off the feature itself, like blocking ads.

No browser developers are compelled to host your antisemitic plugins in their app exchange. Your speech is free even when other people don't help you distribute it. No one can be compelled to help you

 

[Metaphor]

So you concede that the medium has the power to tell people what to think.

Sure. I mean, right now, you are trying to tell me what to think.

If not, then it makes no difference if there is a fact checker addendum, so your argument is self-defeating.

Halal killing of animals makes no difference to the taste of the meat afterwards. It's just a waste of time and resources.

And that's the problem. You think you can, but you actually can't as you have just previously conceded.

When did I concede it?

I could post links to dozens of studies and toss around Dunning-Kruger until we're both exhausted, but I'll just stop with: it's a fact. You cannot, in fact, vet the content of your feed. It has nothing to do with intelligence or media savvy or anything at all to with your cognitive functioning (or malfunctioning).

At least not in the manner you misconstrue. There are a number of different ways I can manipulate you into thinking any number of different things; buy any number of different products; feel any number of different emotions; etc and there would be fuck-all you'd be able to do to stop it or even know it's happening. You are literally being manipulated in a dozen different ways right this very second that have absolutely no intellectual barrier against or ability to discover, let alone contravene.

So why would content vetters be better placed to do it?

You put your goalposts too far away there. Move them back to how in the fuck would hiring people to fact-check content be a "waste of resources" that in turn causes some sort of harm? Give an example. Like, Trump says: "If you think you have Covid-19, you should inject yourself with disinfectants." Fact checker notes underneath: "Self-injecting disinfectants will cause immediate death."

And be careful, since it's a trick question that destroys your own argument once again. At worst, it employs a bunch of people.

Facebook taking on more costs to implement a service I do not value doesn't benefit me.

A bunch of people being employed is fine, but they could be doing something productive instead.

I wonder: how many users of Facebook have asked for this service versus the installed user base?

It's no real skin off my nose if Facebook decides to do it. It'll just make Facebook more annoying.

 

[lpetrich]

Mark Zuckerberg on leaked audio from Facebook internal meeting: Trump’s post about “looting” isn’t a “dog whistle” - Vox - "On a tense call with employees, the Facebook CEO defended his decision not to moderate Trump’s posts."

In an internal video call with Facebook employees on Tuesday obtained by Recode, CEO Mark Zuckerberg doubled down on his controversial decision to take no action on a post last week from President Donald Trump. In the post, Trump referred to the ongoing protests in the US against racism and police brutality and said, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

...
This tension spilled over into the Tuesday Q&A meeting that around 25,000 employees tuned into — with several employees’ posing questions that were highly critical of the company’s actions and policies, and scrutinized whether the company is listening to racially diverse voices in its upper ranks.

“I knew that the stakes were very high on this, and knew a lot of people would be upset if we made the decision to leave it up,” Zuckerberg said on the call. He went on to say that after reviewing the implications of Trump’s statement, he decided that “the right action for where we are right now is to leave this up.”

He also said “This isn’t a case where [Trump] is allowed to say anything he wants, or that we let government officials or policy makers say anything they want.”

 

[lpetrich]

Facebook mutiny - Popular Information

Last Wednesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared on Fox News to defend his decision not to remove two Facebook posts by Trump about mail-in voting. The posts clearly violated Facebook's policy prohibiting misinformation about voting methods. Zuckerberg said Trump's posts would stay, but the company would take down posts by Trump that advocated violence.

But when Trump recently posted

These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

that post stayed.

Zuckerberg's decision was particularly unpopular with a group of people the billionaire CEO cannot afford to alienate: his employees.

Like Tim Aveni, who publically announced that he was quitting in protest.

Aveni's explanation for his resignation is consistent with Popular Information's reporting over the last two years. Again, and again, and again, Facebook has bent, ignored, or changed its rules to accommodate Trump.

Aveni is not the only Facebook employee to take offense to Zuckerberg's latest decision to accommodate Trump. On Twitter, numerous employees took the extraordinary step of criticizing their CEO, including several high-ranking executives.

...
The internal revolt is a result of Facebook's contradictory messages colliding. Facebook has pitched itself to employees, mostly in the San Francisco area, as a progressive and inclusive company. Meanwhile, Facebook's powerful DC office, which controls much of the company's public policy, is run by Republican operatives focused on placating Trump.

 

[lpetrich]

A well-known social-media user on this controversy:

AOC Exposes Vapid Corporate Support For #BlackoutTuesday By Calling Out Teams With Problematic Mascots - like the Washington Redskins posting a black square while continuing with their problematic name.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I see a lot of corporations releasing bland statements w a hashtag.
No. This moment calls for transformation.
Your statement should include your org’s INTERNAL commitments to change, particularly if you’ve been called on it before.
Give people change. https://t.co/JvFpn2cMeA" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Yes, I will name names.
@amazon needs to stop integrating Ring cameras w/ police depts & selling facial recognition tech to ICE.
@Nextdoor needs to publicly deal w/ their Karen problem
Commercial banks need to stop lobbying against the Community Reinvestment Act Name yours " / Twitter

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Sure. I mean, right now, you are trying to tell me what to think.

And...goalposts shifted.

I could post links to dozens of studies and toss around Dunning-Kruger until we're both exhausted, but I'll just stop with: it's a fact. You cannot, in fact, vet the content of your feed. It has nothing to do with intelligence or media savvy or anything at all to with your cognitive functioning (or malfunctioning).

At least not in the manner you misconstrue. There are a number of different ways I can manipulate you into thinking any number of different things; buy any number of different products; feel any number of different emotions; etc and there would be fuck-all you'd be able to do to stop it or even know it's happening. You are literally being manipulated in a dozen different ways right this very second that have absolutely no intellectual barrier against or ability to discover, let alone contravene.

So why would content vetters be better placed to do it?

Because a primary reason why I can so easily manipulate you is if you don't know that I am doing it. Iow, if I disguise the manipulation in a manner that doesn't raise your suspicion, or, such as in the case of an authority figure like Trump, being in a position of authority for literally millions of people is sufficient in its own right for them to believe he wouldn't lie to them in spite of the many documented times he has lied directly to them.

And before you follow up with something even more idiotic--like "My suspicion is always raised"--it isn't. It's not physically possible for you to always be in a state of constant skepticism toward passive, clandestine content in general, let alone in regard to someone you have predetermined to be an authority figure. Look no further than Christianity. It is entirely based on authority figures making ridiculous claims that billions of people nevertheless believe to be true simply because they are being told by authority figures (parents included).

But a very simple way to destroy the psychology of that artifice is to do this:



Just compare the above, with the exact same post from Trump without the immediate qualifier that instantly reduces Trump to a subordinate position:

You put your goalposts too far away there. Move them back to how in the fuck would hiring people to fact-check content be a "waste of resources" that in turn causes some sort of harm? Give an example. Like, Trump says: "If you think you have Covid-19, you should inject yourself with disinfectants." Fact checker notes underneath: "Self-injecting disinfectants will cause immediate death."

And be careful, since it's a trick question that destroys your own argument once again. At worst, it employs a bunch of people.

Facebook taking on more costs to implement a service I do not value doesn't benefit me.

Again, no one cares about what does or does not "benefit" you. You claimed it would cause harm. It would not cause harm, not even to you, as your readily concede:

It's no real skin off my nose if Facebook decides to do it. It'll just make Facebook more annoying.

For you. See previous sentiment.

 

[lpetrich]

Hey @jack, Here Are More Questionable Tweets From @realdonaldtrump - The New York Times

Twitter attached labels refuting two of Mr. Trump’s tweets on voter fraud and restricted one that implied protesters in Minneapolis could be shot. But it left countless others unchallenged, including those baselessly insinuating that the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough killed a former staff member.

A New York Times review of the president’s 139 Twitter posts from Sunday, May 24, to Saturday, May 30, found at least 26 contained clearly false claims, including five about mail-in voting that were not flagged, five promoting the false conspiracy theory about Mr. Scarborough and three about Twitter itself. Another 24 were misleading, lacked context or traded in innuendo. (This analysis did not include dozens of Mr. Trump’s retweets.)

To put it another way, more than a third of the president’s tweets over the course of a week contained dubious information. That presents a challenge both to Twitter and to the millions of people who are exposed to Mr. Trump on social media, especially now, with the nation facing the triple challenge of a pandemic, economic dislocation and nationwide protests over systemic racism.

Seems like Twitter's labeling doesn't go far enough. But even a few labels were enough to provoke him.

How Trump’s Idea for a Photo Op Led to Havoc in a Park - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — After a weekend of protests that led all the way to his own front yard and forced him to briefly retreat to a bunker beneath the White House, President Trump arrived in the Oval Office on Monday agitated over the television images, annoyed that anyone would think he was hiding and eager for action.

He wanted to send the military into American cities, an idea that provoked a heated, voices-raised fight among his advisers. But by the end of the day, urged on by his daughter Ivanka Trump, he came up with a more personal way of demonstrating toughness — he would march across Lafayette Square to a church damaged by fire the night before.

That big baby has nobody to blame for that but himself. Doesn't he have any idea of cause and effect?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's no real skin off my nose if Facebook decides to do it. It'll just make Facebook more annoying.

Why do facts annoy you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seems like Twitter's labeling doesn't go far enough. But even a few labels were enough to provoke him.

maybe testing the water?
I mean, maybe they are just tired of being yoked to Twitler.
I note the option of 'lie less' never fucking occurred to him.

When the news shows tell fake news, he wants to revoke their license. But for him, fake news is a god given right. One of the commandments, maybe, or an Ammendment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's no real skin off my nose if Facebook decides to do it. It'll just make Facebook more annoying.

Why do facts annoy you?

He'd prefer to think that he's doing research into The Trooth, without clear indications he's being led.

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like Twitter's labeling doesn't go far enough. But even a few labels were enough to provoke him.

maybe testing the water?

I wouldn't be surprised. They'd be doing a little bit of it to see whether it is worth doing it on a large scale.

 

[Metaphor]

It's no real skin off my nose if Facebook decides to do it. It'll just make Facebook more annoying.

Why do facts annoy you?

They don't. What would be annoying is a multibillion dollar Silicon Valley corporation adorning somebody else's content with their own input.

 

[Metaphor]

There was a web browser add-in (since deleted) that processed any news page you were on and added a red square around the names of authors and by-lines of people known to have a Jewish background. That add-in was deleted, though it seems to me all it was doing was adding information that people were free to ignore.

I'm not going to care much whether Facebook or Twitter (I don't really use the latter) adds 'fact-checking' to their list of 'services', though it would be annoying more than anything. Perhaps they'll give people the option to turn it off, or perhaps there will be some codenerds that can hack it and turn off the feature itself, like blocking ads.

No browser developers are compelled to host your antisemitic plugins in their app exchange. Your speech is free even when other people don't help you distribute it. No one can be compelled to help you

Um, what?

I didn't use or want that plugin, I read about it in The Guardian.

 

[Metaphor]

And...goalposts shifted.

No. You are posting on a message board trying to tell me what to think. Whether you are successful or not is a different story.

Because a primary reason why I can so easily manipulate you is if you don't know that I am doing it. Iow, if I disguise the manipulation in a manner that doesn't raise your suspicion, or, such as in the case of an authority figure like Trump, being in a position of authority for literally millions of people is sufficient in its own right for them to believe he wouldn't lie to them in spite of the many documented times he has lied directly to them.

And before you follow up with something even more idiotic--like "My suspicion is always raised"--it isn't. It's not physically possible for you to always be in a state of constant skepticism toward passive, clandestine content in general, let alone in regard to someone you have predetermined to be an authority figure. Look no further than Christianity. It is entirely based on authority figures making ridiculous claims that billions of people nevertheless believe to be true simply because they are being told by authority figures (parents included).

I see. Perhaps Facebook should fact-check religious posts?

But a very simple way to destroy the psychology of that artifice is to do this:

View attachment 28046

Just compare the above, with the exact same post from Trump without the immediate qualifier that instantly reduces Trump to a subordinate position:

View attachment 28047

Why are you capable of being so easily manipulated by Trump like this?

Again, no one cares about what does or does not "benefit" you. You claimed it would cause harm. It would not cause harm, not even to you, as your readily concede:

I said wasting resources causes harm.But, even if you don't believe wasting resources to be harmful, "not proven to be harmful" is not a good reason to start doing something.

For you. See previous sentiment.

I use Facebook to see pictures of my nieces and nephews and sometimes to make vaguely funny observations. I don't want or need Facebook to pretend they're journalists (we already have enough people pretending they are journalists).

You can accept what I've told you--that I do not value Facebook or any social media company 'vetting' content for me and I'm not arrogant enough to think other people need it for their own good--or don't accept it.

 

[bilby]

It's no real skin off my nose if Facebook decides to do it. It'll just make Facebook more annoying.

Why do facts annoy you?

They don't. What would be annoying is a multibillion dollar Silicon Valley corporation adorning somebody else's content with their own input.

What on Earth makes you think that they haven't done this from day one?

The mere choice of what posts or (more importantly to FB executives, what advertisements) are immediately adjacent to any given post is a direct example of exactly the thing you are railing against.

And that you are claiming that you are immune to, on the grounds that you would know if you were being manipulated.

Despite your apparent obliviousness to the fact that you have been manipulated in exactly the way you are concerned about, since the very first time you looked at Facebook.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No.

Yes.

You are posting on a message board...snip

Shifting goalposts even further won't do you any good.

Perhaps Facebook should fact-check religious posts?

Generally speaking, religious claims are claims of faith, but if there are any that are claims of fact, why not?

Why are you capable of being so easily manipulated by Trump like this?

Why have you not stopped fucking pigs? Any more loaded questions you wish to hide behind?

Again, no one cares about what does or does not "benefit" you. You claimed it would cause harm. It would not cause harm, not even to you, as your readily concede:

I said wasting resources causes harm.

Let's cut to the chase once again: No one is harmed by Facebook adding a fact checking notation, regardless of whether or not you personally think it to be a waste of resources. You being annoyed does not constitute a relevant harm.

You can accept..snip

You can fuck off or not fuck off. Once again, nobody cares about you personally. Which is to say, the only thing that matters is your arguments. Unfortunately, you haven't really made any. You've just tossed a bit of sea lioning with some fallacies and a pathetic attempt at disingenuous shaming, trying to imply that arrogance is driving a need for fact checking, while at the same time conceding that not all people are equally intelligent or equally capable of discerning fact from fiction and thus will believe what Trump claims/says without any critical analysis.

For example, 75% of Republicans trust Trump’s medical advice. While I am no great fan of Republicans, believe it or not, in real life I wouldn't want 75% of them to actually inject disinfectants because Trump tweeted it. It would be sweet irony if it happened, but I don't seriously wish anyone would do so and the fact remains that if there weren't fact-checkers--the media for one--immediately telling people NOT to inject and Trump finally being forced into pretending he was being "sarcastic"--it's likely more would have tried it.

Plus there is strong evidence that fact checking works, which in turn strongly suggests the need for it:

Political scientists Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood conducted an exhaustive battery of surveys on fact-checking, across more than 10,000 participants and 13 studies that covered a range of political, economic and scientific topics. They found that 60 percent of respondents gave accurate answers when presented with a correction, while just 32 percent of respondents who were not given a correction expressed accurate beliefs. That’s pretty solid proof that fact-checking can work.
...
So despite a few studies suggesting that fact checks may make misinformation more prevalent (most prominently a widely-cited paper from political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010, which popularized the concept of the “backfire effect”), the overwhelming majority of studies have found that fact checks do work — or at the very least, do no harm.

So there you go. Independent confirmation that fact checking does no harm and could do tremendous good.

 

[Metaphor]

The mere choice of what posts or (more importantly to FB executives, what advertisements) are immediately adjacent to any given post is a direct example of exactly the thing you are railing against.

Huh? I don't value advertising on my Facebook feed. It is something I, and every Facebook user, accepts as part of the price of using Facebook.

"Fact-checking" is not a service I would value and it isn't necessary to keep the service at the price most people will tolerate (free).

And that you are claiming that you are immune to, on the grounds that you would know if you were being manipulated.

No. I asked the posters supporting this if they had trouble distinguishing blatant lies from the truth. They assured me that they did not.

I made the same claim for myself.

But even if I hadn't, I still did not claim I was 'immune' to being manipulated. Even if I were extremely vulnerable to being 'manipulated', I still wouldn't want or trust a multibillion dollar Silicon Valley social media company to "vet" content for me with their cosplaying as journalists and experts.

Despite your apparent obliviousness to the fact that you have been manipulated in exactly the way you are concerned about, since the very first time you looked at Facebook.

Yes. It's always other people who are manipulated, isn't it?

 

[Metaphor]

Generally speaking, religious claims are claims of faith, but if there are any that are claims of fact, why not?

Claims of faith are generally also claims of fact.

But sure. Let's have Facebook fact-check every vapid meme showing God created the world 6,000 years ago, or the claim that Mohammed is the prophet of God (both claims are false, because there is no God).

I'm trying to cut down on carbs but that's an event for which I'll grab the popcorn.

Why have you not stopped fucking pigs? Any more loaded questions you wish to hide behind?

You are hiding. Did you believe the first claim without the 'fact checking'?

Let's cut to the chase once again: No one is harmed by Facebook adding a fact checking notation, regardless of whether or not you personally think it to be a waste of resources. You being annoyed does not constitute a relevant harm.

And I said even if you disagree about harm or not (because I don't have blind faith in multibillion dollar Silicon Valley social media companies, and you do), 'not shown to do harm' is not a good reason to implement something.

<snipped vapid insults>

For example, 75% of Republicans trust Trump’s medical advice. While I am no great fan of Republicans, believe it or not, in real life I wouldn't want 75% of them to actually inject disinfectants because Trump tweeted it.

What percent of Republicans do you think would inject disinfectant if Trump tweeted it? I'm curious.

It would be sweet irony if it happened, but I don't seriously wish anyone would do so and the fact remains that if there weren't fact-checkers--the media for one--immediately telling people NOT to inject and Trump finally being forced into pretending he was being "sarcastic"--it's likely more would have tried it.

Plus there is strong evidence that fact checking works, which in turn strongly suggests the need for it:

I said I don't want or trust Facebook to check my facts. I do my own fact checking.

So there you go. Independent confirmation that fact checking does no harm and could do tremendous good.

Yes, I too believe in the power of checking facts. I do it all the time.

 

[bilby]

Huh? I don't value advertising on my Facebook feed. It is something I, and every Facebook user, accepts as part of the price of using Facebook.

"Fact-checking" is not a service I would value and it isn't necessary to keep the service at the price most people will tolerate (free).



No. I asked the posters supporting this if they had trouble distinguishing blatant lies from the truth. They assured me that they did not.

I made the same claim for myself.

But even if I hadn't, I still did not claim I was 'immune' to being manipulated. Even if I were extremely vulnerable to being 'manipulated', I still wouldn't want or trust a multibillion dollar Silicon Valley social media company to "vet" content for me with their cosplaying as journalists and experts.

Despite your apparent obliviousness to the fact that you have been manipulated in exactly the way you are concerned about, since the very first time you looked at Facebook.

Yes. It's always other people who are manipulated, isn't it?

No, it's not.

I have certainly been misled and manipulated by Facebook (and other media). I become aware of it fairly infrequently, but I expect it happens quite often without my even noticing. How could I (or anyone) distinguish blatant lies from the truth, on any subject about which I am largely ignorant? Which is a LOT of subjects.

It's noticeable that on the rare occasions when something is in the news about which I am highly knowledgeable and well informed, the majority of reporting contains gross errors, and/or draws unwarranted conclusions due to a clear lack of expertise on the part of the reporter. Given that journalists tend not to be experts in fields other than journalism, this isn't a surprise. And it seems highly implausible that these journalistic errors should coincidentally ONLY be present in articles about subjects about which I am highly knowledgeable.

My conclusion is that most of the "information" out there is, at best, massively oversimplified; And is often completely wrong. And I know that I don't know enough to spot the mistakes in many cases.

Perhaps you should note that a couple of responses from other people on this board don't constitute a sufficient sample to draw the broad conclusion that all those who disagree with you share an opinion; and that those who don't bother to respond to your questions might not necessarily share the positions of those who do.

Anyway, now that I have responded, you will have to ditch your conceit that everyone is concerned only about other (lesser?) people. Fact checking, by independent and qualified experts, is a very useful service.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it's not.

I have certainly been misled and manipulated by Facebook (and other media). I become aware of it fairly infrequently, but I expect it happens quite often without my even noticing. How could I (or anyone) distinguish blatant lies from the truth, on any subject about which I am largely ignorant? Which is a LOT of subjects.

I would like to think that the 'blatant' part would help, but, although I want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe (or no longer believe) as many as false things as possible.

But if I care enough to fact check something, I care enough to do it myself. I certainly do not trust, and would not rely, on whatever a social media company cosplaying as experts, told me they had 'fact checked'.

It's noticeable that on the rare occasions when something is in the news about which I am highly knowledgeable and well informed, the majority of reporting contains gross errors, and/or draws unwarranted conclusions due to a clear lack of expertise on the part of the reporter. Given that journalists tend not to be experts in fields other than journalism, this isn't a surprise. And it seems highly implausible that these journalistic errors should coincidentally ONLY be present in articles about subjects about which I am highly knowledgeable.

So, why then would you trust a social media company to fact check something for you, when the people who are supposed to be reporting the facts, whose entire job it is to report the facts, can't do it?

My conclusion is that most of the "information" out there is, at best, massively oversimplified; And is often completely wrong. And I know that I don't know enough to spot the mistakes in many cases.

Perhaps you should note that a couple of responses from other people on this board don't constitute a sufficient sample to draw the broad conclusion that all those who disagree with you share an opinion; and that those who don't bother to respond to your questions might not necessarily share the positions of those who do.

Anyway, now that I have responded, you will have to ditch your conceit that everyone is concerned only about other (lesser?) people. Fact checking, by independent and qualified experts, is a very useful service.

I think the information out there might be simplified but is not often 'completely wrong'. It's usually based on something rather than manufactured from whole cloth.

But, more to the point, 'simple' facts I can check for myself.

For complex facts, why would I trust a social media company to be an unbiased, expert vetter of them? I can tell you I don't trust them to do so. Hell, even outfits right now that purport to be 'fact checkers' often do what I consider to be an inadequate job. For example, they may 'debunk' a certain, specific claim of fact, but they neglect to say the spirit of the utterance is more or less true. Their understanding of the facts is coloured by their own biases. Indeed, why wouldn't it be? They're not superhuman in any way.