Oddbean new post about login | logout Why aren't "community notes" just fact-checking and soft-censorship?
As long as they’re genuinely democratic, they’re just the audience giving feedback
What do you mean by "democratic"?
I mean if they are unfiltered responses that are upvoted in an unfiltered way
They are 100% fact checking.
Why aren't they called "fact-checking" then? Is it because they come from the right now and not from the left?
They were called community notes when they started the feature in 2021. Doesn’t matter which side it’s coming from or what they call it, it’s fact checking and censorship.
You have good opinions.
Probably some bad ones too. 😂
How is it censorship? The tweet is still there.
Replies and quote tweets already exist and that’s where discussion and debate best take place. Community notes are a totally subjective “mob rule” approach to determine what context and additional information is most relevant for other users to see. They are warning labels with no real purpose except to make a bunch of Karens feel powerful.
I feel they are useful especially with all the disinformation on X . I have seen mob rule on replies and quote tweets. Everyone should do their own research but there are so many koolaid drinkers on X.
It is fact checking, but is it censorship? The OP isn't removed when it gets a community note. Some posts from Elon Musk have community notes, but they are still visible (obviously).
I believe they think any level of correction is “censorship” which is moronic as there’s some level of right or wrong. You can tell me that I live at Santa Maria drive 1235 if I say that’s not where I live then me correcting you isn’t censorship. It’s like with liberals and everything can be true nonsense. I don’t give af about your “truth” if you’re giving me false information, you’re just wrong not censored
Hmm because the original posts aren't censored(?) it's like a rating on Google reviews. In theory at least. No?
That's why I am saying it's "soft". It's like you let the other person speak, but then you immediately "correct" them with a higher authority take that completely voids them.
I suppose it's a matter of who has access to be the authoritative voice in the case of fact-checking. I was thinking more of community notes. I'm not entirely sure how they even work on twitter actually. Who is allowed to make them? It's more like consensus opinion of the dominant community's voices or something.
They are fact-checking. That’s the intent.
Is that a good thing or not in your opinion?
Why would it be a bad thing to have fact checking?
I believe right now it is because so many worldwide have been brainwashed into following herd mentality. Look at what DuPont did. People are quick to forget things. https://nostrcheck.me/media/2aadfb8ac7d43aca6d164ed99248147910048269601ff60d4463c4d5b3abfdcd/a7d0e04b1992e53b273f1982a67c313fe8b82a4d075b7c0b9c3dc19478f39162.webp
Yes, and I do think a system like they have that only allows something to be approved when people who have different perspectives agree is a good idea. See https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/tree/main/sourcecode Also, I believe it is labeled correctly. It is a “note” which doesn’t imply it is a correction which I think is important.
Because everything is a loaded term these days. Checking a fact isn't a bad thing. Checking an opinion for fact statements isn't inherently bad. Public discourse upon such facts, not bad. Put it all together....aaaaaand now it's censorship and bad and all that. Censorship generally doesn't leave the "Censored" thing available for public view, just so we are all using terms correctly.
"Journalism" from biased reporters who are cheerleaders for the topic are a danger as well, not only for distortion of truth but also for personal agenda.
It's much better to have access to multiple views from biased reporters than a single truth from the ministry of truth.
For sure. There's no ministry of truth in the first world, only in dystopian fantasy, as a warning. If anyone has manipulated online media, it was brief attempts that didn't last. But biased reporting is not the whole truth. The more reputable reporting is filtered to the top. Unreliable subject matter bloggers / vlogger influencers and their sycophantic fans can be ignored by discerning viewers. There's a lot more to say but I need to drink my latte.
Journalism needs to be a fair and balanced reporting on both sides of an issue, from neutral third parties.
Journalism has never been unbiased. Your former employer Hearst was making up entire battles during the Spanish American War in the 19th Century. https://image.nostr.build/f48734035945a613c3e5535f3dbb1ccb64dbdefe8c67a00c700f6e63e510c0a2.jpg
