Read on Twitter
Thread: This informative @wired piece has a good take (but see below!) on Twitter's unexpected fact-check of Trump's one-bazillionth misleading tweet: basically, kudos for a gutsy move but "the execution left much to be desired" https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-fact-checked-trump-tweets-mail-in-ballots/
Couldn't agree more. Twitter seems to be making policy in crisis-response mode, which is understandable but risky. A string of policy updates started in March with "broadening our definition of harm" (i.e., removable tweets) to include COVID-19 misinfo https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/An-update-on-our-continuity-strategy-during-COVID-19.html
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/An-update-on-our-continuity-strategy-during-COVID-19.html
The risks of ad hoc approach are 1) no coherent policy around what gets fact-checked; right now that seems to be only misinfo about either a) COVID or b) "civic processes," i.e. elections (that's how Trump's tweets on mail-in vote fraud qualified) https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy
2) No clear policy on whose tweets are subject to fact-checking and/or removal; some world leaders & celebrities have had COVID-19 quackery deleted while e.g. Trump's tweets promoting HCQ or mass rallies stayed up https://undark.org/2020/04/18/twitter-deleting-covid-19-lies-bolsonaro/ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/twitter-deleted-tweets-brazil-president-coronavirus
3) No consistent, transparent methodology for fact-checking. So far corrections are pulled together by Twitter's "Moments" team ( @wired: hardly "master arbiters of truth") drawing on various media sources, with confusing results https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-fact-checked-trump-tweets-mail-in-ballots/
4) As a result, no clean way to scale up as the program expands - which it almost definitely will, with the US election looming, and as inevitable complaints about inconsistency & unfairness pile up (good faith or otherwise) https://www.engadget.com/trump-twitter-fact-check-meh-120031445.html https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-exec-in-charge-of-effort-to-fact-check-trump-has-history-of-anti-trump-posts-called-mcconnell-a-bag-of-farts
Maybe the best thing about Twitter's recent moves is the precedent they set: Political leaders with huge online followings should be first in line for fact-checking, not exempt from it, as per Facebook's misguided policy https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/elections-and-political-speech/
Everything we know about online misinformation supports a holistic approach: viral rumors that bubble up from the deep are most dangerous when they resonate with - or are amplified by - speech from political leaders (see e.g. this @risj_oxford report) https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/types-sources-and-claims-covid-19-misinformation
Last thought: It's hard to agree with @Wired's take that full-time fact-checkers like @PolitiFact "are often just as full of shit as the politicians they’re debunking." True, it's not hard to find examples of fact-checks that fall short, but that's no reason to abandon the effort
Full-time groups have what the in-house team at Twitter lacks: transparent methodologies with rules around who & how to fact-check. They list all sources, publish corrections, and adhere to a public Code of Principles with 75+ signatories around the globe https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/signatories
It's far from perfect (e.g. the @factchecknet principles just underwent a major overhaul) but it IS a good-faith effort to build fact-checking into an institution with norms & standards fact-checkers can be judged by. That's a huge asset for tech & media firms facing "infodemic"
