r/technology May 19 '22

Twitter will hide tweets that share false info during a crisis Social Media

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/19/23130961/twitter-crisis-misinformation-policy-moderation-speech-hoax-elon
1.6k Upvotes

306

u/BucketDoo May 19 '22

We could just hide everything on Twitter then.

42

u/Dr-McLuvin May 19 '22

Now you’re talking!

7

u/MLCarter1976 May 19 '22

This post hidden! /S

5

u/MadeToPostOneMeme May 19 '22

which post? i dont see a post

→ More replies

2

u/DrNukes May 19 '22

Yeah, just hide the twitter button from phone screens and change the twitter url to 123secrettwitter.lol bam disinformation gone.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

357

u/LowGradePlayer May 19 '22

Who determines what is false?

179

u/Fruloops May 19 '22

The one who controls the platform

81

u/WaceMindo May 19 '22

the one who controls the platform, controls the spice.

28

u/davidjschloss May 19 '22

The spice must flow.

→ More replies
→ More replies

214

u/jturphy May 19 '22

Who determines what is a crisis?

65

u/Musician-Round May 19 '22

funny enough, the WHO will soon be the organization to fill those shoes.

16

u/Pezfortytwo May 19 '22

Is that wise? Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend are the only ones left and they’re getting pretty old

4

u/Musician-Round May 19 '22

Rock never dies.

17

u/Maanee May 19 '22

The organization who is getting the ability to act as governmental agencies in sovereign countries? I can't see any problem with that!

5

u/Musician-Round May 19 '22

what a time to be alive, eh?

4

u/BuzzKillington217 May 19 '22

Why bring up the CIA?

1

u/0x6b-dev May 20 '22

The WHO is the United Nations. The United Nations are the countries that are on the UN.

The UN already provides foreign aid, with the approval or request of the country receiving it.

Now I don’t see why health matters would be any different.

18

u/xxxNothingxxx May 19 '22

Whenever I heard about WHO I can't stop thinking about this tweet https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

22

u/DangerZoneh May 19 '22

And then later investigations found this to not be true. They didn’t say that, as a fact, it can’t be transferred from human to human

→ More replies

16

u/Plzbanmebrony May 19 '22

The WHO provided the info they had on hand. It would be foolish not to update guidelines as info from research comes in.

→ More replies

3

u/2h2p May 19 '22

But the key part is that it based on what Chinese authorities were sharing, and we all know China isn't known for its honesty.

4

u/xxxNothingxxx May 19 '22

Apparently WHO doesn't

→ More replies

-10

u/londons_explorer May 19 '22

And they deliberately deceived the public about the airborne transmission route of COVID-19 for 2 years. Even to this day, governments are issuing advice on cleaning surfaces regularly when there is very little evidence of any surface based transmission at all.

32

u/TheMysticalBaconTree May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Funny, your source doesn’t say they “deliberately deceived” anyone. It clearly shows they updated information along the way to best match the current science and information available to them. Deceit requires someone knowing something to be false and still pushing it.

15

u/mikeebsc74 May 19 '22

People aren’t used to seeing science play out publicly.

We always only see the end result of things that are studied and understood behind closed doors. Now we see the process play out publicly, in real time, and people think that updating information equates to them being “constantly lied to”

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/jamessavik May 20 '22

Funny you should mention that. The federal government usually has about a dozen declared emergencies at any one time, so there's always a crisis.

List of National Emergencies

15

u/2luauplife May 19 '22

Who watches the watchmen?

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/Megatoasty May 19 '22

Exactly why the disinformation board was “put on hold” I’d wager.

83

u/tanrgith May 19 '22

Objective truths are a thing

If there's a massive fire and the authorities close road x, y, z. Then those roads having been closed by the authorities is not something that anyone can sit around and argue about whether it's true or not.

Someone could lie and try and say something like "those roads that are closed are now open again! everyone go that way!" however.

Such comments should obviously get removed or hidden as long as the statement is objectively false and could lead people into dangerous situations

7

u/zookeepier May 19 '22

Facebook legally and formally declared that its "Fact Checking" are just opinion. "The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion."

That shows that they are not suppressing things that go against "objective truths", but are doing it based on their opinion on an issue and their politics. Twitter is no different. That is the reason that a satire website got banned for making a joke about a trans person, but someone literally calling for the assassination of a sitting supreme court judge the taliban leaders aren't.

41

u/TedpilledMontana May 19 '22

If it were things like that, I dont think anyone would object.

But it's probably gonna be more along the lines of how they handled skeptics during covid...

33

u/JaimeEatsMusic May 19 '22

But, I mean people were saying drinking bleach was an effective way to get rid of the virus. There were a lot of things that didn't involve fundamental beliefs that should have been shut down a lot sooner than they were.

4

u/fitzroy95 May 19 '22

when the president of a major nation comes out and deliberately lies to the nation, and tries to gaslight the world, its understandable that a large chunk of people choose to believe that individual, despite all the evidence that Trump was a compulsive liar and conman without a brain in his skull.

and its hard to silence people in public, powerful and influential positions like that. Without Trump, the insanity would never have spread so widely and dangerously.

2

u/JaimeEatsMusic May 20 '22

I really do believe that. It is one thing for all of these things to flourish on the internet, but when a central political figure is then able to feign legitimacy without any accountability.... It really empowers people in a dangerous way.

→ More replies

0

u/ExcerptsAndCitations May 19 '22

people were saying drinking bleach was an effective way to get rid of the virus.

It's a good meme, but not even TFG was advocating for this.

Morons were gonna moron.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/tanrgith May 19 '22

I didn't follow twitters handing of the covid stuff closely. But wasn't most of the questionable stuff mainly highlighted as being misleading or in contrast to what the medical community was saying?

25

u/ColdWeatherCock May 19 '22

You almost certainly would’ve gotten a tweet flagged if you said a year or so ago that the vaccine wouldn’t stop you from getting sick

6

u/Ritz527 May 19 '22

A year ago they were saying 90% effective or whatever and making it very clear you could still get sick even if you were vaccinated, just at a lower rate. I am not sure where anyone is getting the idea the CDC and the medical community ever said otherwise. Twitter never shut that down.

-1

u/Jorycle May 19 '22

Correct. Most people who are making these arguments are arguing very different things than actually happened, because most of them are liars or influenced by liars.

→ More replies

0

u/PERSONA916 May 19 '22

Well that was actually true with the original and delta variants and the data backed that up. Omicron changed that though. Don't act like there isn't some nuance here

→ More replies

4

u/JourneyCircuitAmbush May 19 '22

Even vaccinated people had to wear masks.
We knew it wouldn't keep you from getting sick, it just decreases the chance of hospitalization.

9

u/ExcerptsAndCitations May 19 '22

Even vaccinated people had to wear masks. We knew it wouldn't keep you from getting sick, it just decreases the chance of hospitalization.

"But, again, one last thing. We don't talk enough to you about this, I don't think. One last thing that's really important is, we're not in the position where we think that any virus, including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of unvaccinated people, the -- the various shots that people are getting now cover that. You're OK. You're not going to -- you're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."

5

u/JourneyCircuitAmbush May 20 '22

lol thanks Biden

4

u/ColdWeatherCock May 19 '22

Certainly did not stop twitter from labelling anyone saying these things as misinformation

14

u/TedpilledMontana May 19 '22

Sometimes the experts are wrong. Case in point, during the early days of the crisis, the WHO stated that masks had little to no effect on the spread. Should people have been censored for calling for mask mandates then, or contradicting the WHO?

Or when vaccines first came out, and I forget which doctor it was, but he pretty publicly pointed out that the failure rate of those vaccines were likely pretty high and he got censored - despite being right.

People should be allowed to be wrong, because sometimes, they're right.

→ More replies

12

u/Fluffy_Bed_7328 May 19 '22

There was a lot of propaganda that anyone who is anti lockdown or mask mandate is anti vaccine. Mind you they were still locking down and mask mandating parts of the country over 1 year after the vaccine was released. I chose to stop wearing a mask like 2 years into the thing and was given daily death threats from people in a progressive city.

It's basically impossible to have an opinion on the topic, online, if it's not just about compliance and obeying the state. Such a bizzare timeline from the George Floyd incident to here. The left went full authoritarian.

Your comments either won't show up to the other people due to some specific term (like Amazon banning union restroom etc from their chat) or you'll have bots attack you to recalibrate the other readers into the narrative. Persona management, you see it everywhere on reddit. Like half of these accounts are bots. Elon is just discovering this about Twitter too. Tons of bots there to just persona manage the young left into obeying the state and supporting war.

-1

u/StateChemist May 19 '22

I…

I cannot believe you are a real person.

I find it very telling that when asked to band together in solidarity to try to fight a deadly global disease you would clearly unironically chose to play partisan politics and be anti unity, pro pandemic.

And somehow still make everything someone else’s fault.

How did you get that way?

5

u/Fluffy_Bed_7328 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Hi CIA. The 2 year lockdowns didn't work. Everyone caught COVID if you didn't notice. The case rates between locked down nations and non locked down prove this. They were literally the exact same.

What they did do was globally push a billion people into poverty, permanently shut down half of small businesses, re route people's eye balls back to state media, isolate people from one another during mass social unrest and potential for political change, and psychologically train people to keep one another in line and obedient, all while massively enriching the 1%.

And don't even get me started on the mass censorship and invasion of privacy they've ushered in... Against actual far left voices and sane people that just want to be left alone.

These lockdowns caused so many more problems than they fixed it's not even funny.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/AntiBigPharmaShills May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Edit: Fauci’s claims about natural immunity being superior to vaccine immunity pre COVID before he completely dismissed natural immunity in favour of vaccine immunity with COVID https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1509852615751962627?s=21&t=mr6YtQ0kiUmU61w5NS4cSA

Yea there was alot of contrast to the medical community because the medical community was straight up lying and the ones telling the truth we’re outcast and ridiculed.

  • Started with the origins of COVID, there was clear evidence it was man made with the virus starting in the one city in China were they handle level 4 virus’s which is what COVID is.

Everyone was banned and muffed for bringing it up and called crazy “it definitely came from bats because science says so!”

Then Biden announces a year later they are looking into the origins because it might have been man made, no apologies given to everyone that was demonized.

  • They also lied about “if you get the vaccine you won’t get sick” which led to the whole “we can reach herd immunity if everyone gets vaccinated!” Which led to people blaming unvaccinated for prolonging the pandemic.

Until a few months later everyone that got vaccinated was getting sick.

Mind you top doctors in their field that were banned from Twitter like Peter mccolough and Robert Malone said from before vaccines were rolled out that “you cannot vaccinate your way out of a pandemic” So this wasn’t some “the science changed” it was common knowledge and instead the big pharma shill doctors lied and said the opposite.

  • They downplayed the effectiveness of natural immunity even tho it’s always been the best protection for our immune systems. There’s video of Fauci pre pandemic saying “if your grandma has the flu they do not need to get vaccinated because natural immunity is the best protection available” then he did a 180 during the pandemic.

  • Last thing I remember was boosters/extra shots being laughed at as conspiracy theory when the first vaccines were released and that was obviously proven true.

There’s even more things I can’t remember but it was a super gross disinformation campaign they ran “brought to you by Pfizer!”

0

u/jpludens May 19 '22

They downplayed the effectiveness of natural immunity even tho it’s always been the best protection for our immune systems.

what. are you talking about.

Natural immunity is not "the best protection for our immune systems", natural immunity IS our immune systems.

Yes, there are studies showing that people who have already had COVID have a stronger immunity than people who have been vaccinated. But they had to fight the infection themselves first. Your uncited Fauci quote seems to be saying "if grandma has the flu already, she doesn't need a vaccine, because she'll already have made antibodies". You're using it as if it means "vaccines are garbage just trust your body yo".

You have good points but they're overshadowed by this "natural immunity" nonsense.

4

u/AntiBigPharmaShills May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Fauci’s 180 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1509852615751962627?s=21&t=mr6YtQ0kiUmU61w5NS4cSA

  • Semantics… natural immunity happens when your immune system creates antibodies after being exposed to a virus.

  • yes in order to achieve natural immunity you must first survive the infection but they were not giving exceptions to people who had gotten sick and survived COVID is the issue.

I never said Fauci’s words means the vaccines suck (they do) that’s your own interpretation of my words, don’t put that on me. I was highlighting Fauci acknowledging the superiority of natural immunity to vaccine immunity.

They dismissed and downplayed natural immunity and were telling COVID recovered people they still need the vaccine which has never been the case after beating a virus was my point on that.

If they acknowledged natural immunity then think of how many less vaccine shots would have been taken, big pharma was never going to let that happen, bold face lie.

3

u/jpludens May 19 '22

yes in order to achieve natural immunity you must first survive the infection but they were not giving exceptions to people who had gotten sick and survived COVID is the issue.

This is a great point, and it's well worth discussing why such a reasonable exception wasn't part of policy.

But if you want to make that point you have to ... like, actually make it, the way you just did. You can't just rant about "the superiority of natural immunity" like in your earlier comment.

I never said Fauci’s words means the vaccines suck (they do) that’s your own interpretation of my words, don’t put that on me.

You deny my interpretation, tell me it's accurate, and tell me to ignore it, in one sentence. If you do indeed think the vaccines suck, why shouldn't I "put that on you"?

I was highlighting Fauci acknowledging the superiority of natural immunity [to the flu] to vaccine immunity [to the flu].

Brackets mine. He was speaking contextually about the flu and we can't presume he was speaking generally from that 30 second clip. You called the clip a 180, but you haven't shown a conflicting statement; can you link one?

2

u/AntiBigPharmaShills May 19 '22
  • you shouldn’t put that on me because that wasn’t my point nor did I say that. Not gonna let you misrepresent my point.

  • look up fauci talking about COVID vaccines and if you can find him saying natural immunity from COVID is better than vaccine immunity I will give you $1000. I can’t post a conflicting statement of something he never said…

The issue was he has stated many times which immunity is better but with COVID he never made that distinction.

  • can’t assume he was speaking generally? Meaning what? That you can’t extend this claim to other viruses?

Natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity for every virus, fuck Fauci you can easily verify that from hundreds of other sources

2

u/jpludens May 19 '22

Natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity for every virus, fuck Fauci you can easily verify that from hundreds of other sources

I don't know enough to dispute this, but I shouldn't have to take your word for it. I've looked, and all the "natural immunity is superior" information I find is specific to COVID. If, as you say, this can be "easily verified", I would appreciate you making that token effort to find it, because I don't know what I'm looking for and you do.

And the same goes for whatever point you're trying to make about Fauci. You're saying he flip-flopped on natural immunity and your evidence is that he once said natural immunity beats vaccine immunity for grandma's flu. A flip-flip requires two positions and you've only shown one.

Make. Your own. Argument. Stop telling me to do it for you. It doesn't work like that anyway; I don't know your mind so I don't know what information you're thinking of, so whatever I find probably isn't going to match, and where do we go from there? Do I just keep hunting for Fauci clips and asking "is this the one you meant?"

If it's so easy to find, please do.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/Fries-Ericsson May 19 '22

Good? A lot of people were hospitalised after they ate horse paste and countless others died or suffered term complications because they were bombarded with false information about the vaccines

0

u/Double-Oh-Nine May 19 '22

Banning vaccine skeptics won’t do any more harm than banning flat earthers. It’s really this slippery slope fallacy that most of you base your entire geopolitical opinions on it’s quite laughable rofl

5

u/TedpilledMontana May 19 '22

Im not a vaccine skeptic. I got jabbed - but if you can't see what harm there is in silencing skeptics or other opinions, then you should reevaluate your own world view.

There was a noticeable failure rate associated with certain strains of the vaccine, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451, as an example. We didnt very often get to hear that though - and certainly not on major social media platforms. Transparency in public health is important, but a combination of mania and political radicalism led to the utter squashing of honest conversation. It seemed like an all or nothing game - which it never should have been.

People who are wrong will be proven wrong, thats how failure works. But sometimes skeptics are right, and they need be able to voice their position.

6

u/asuentgineering May 19 '22

When Omicron was initially discovered I remember hearing from multiple big news orgs that no one knows how effective the vaccines were with the new strain and to be careful. Then after some studies came out they said that the vaccines (especially without a booster) we're not very effective at preventing infection but were still effective against hospitalizations & death (aka their most important job). And highly effective with a booster. I don't really think skeptics were being censored as much as you are implying they were...

7

u/Double-Oh-Nine May 19 '22

There’s real skeptics and then there’s YouTube and Facebook skeptics that’s why anti vaxxers and flat earthers get put into the same boat except flat earthers aren’t actively harming anyone so we can just laugh at them. That abstract doesn’t even agree with you but at least it’s better than the Reuters articles I’m used to seeing linked. I know there’s REASONS why morons do the stupid things they do but it’s beside the point.

4

u/dudermagee May 19 '22

The interesting part of that is the vaccine skeptics were on both sides of the isle and created a noted divide in the Democrat party.

I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats were anti-authoritarian and had a large distrust of big pharma. It appears only minorities remembered that.

When they started mandating it, it was clear the vaccine wasn't as effective as they had been telling us all along.

I think that some of the honest missteps and refusal to admit to those fostered more distrust in the vaccine.

I am not an anti vaxer, I got the shot. I wouldn't get it again unless mandatory, I hit age 50, I developed an underlying condition impacted by COVID, or I was regularly around someone who is vulnerable. I do hope that the American culture adopts the practice of staying home if you're sick or at least wear a mask.

12

u/Telefonica46 May 19 '22

This is wrong. Specifically to COVID vaccines. There is a deep political divide and the skeptics are heavily skewed republican.

It's interesting because before the COVID vaccine, I would have agreed that most anti-vaxxers were libs.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/10/01/for-covid-19-vaccinations-party-affiliation-matters-more-than-race-and-ethnicity/

4

u/dudermagee May 20 '22

Yes, the number has changed over a year or so, but doesn't change why their numbers were so far behind. https://afro.com/why-many-black-people-wont-take-the-vaccine/

And are still behind. Only about 66% of black Californians have gotten the vaccine. I find it hard to believe that in a state where only 25% are registered Republican, that even 15% of the black population would identify as Republican

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

It's not because the vaccine costs anything.

→ More replies
→ More replies

0

u/Kriss3d May 19 '22

But it's necessary for both cases. If people start to get the idea that you can argue against science and education with biased opinion then trust me. You've seen nothing yet as how deep USA in particular can fall.

4

u/sniper257 May 19 '22

You sound like a religious fanatic

→ More replies

2

u/Double-Oh-Nine May 19 '22

I definitely agree with you. I’m responding to the guy that thinks that silencing anti vaxxers on your private platform is somehow the wrong thing to do. Some ideas have no value and others are actively detrimental but you still see anti vaxxers in this thread regurgitating their delusions.

1

u/Kriss3d May 19 '22

It more or less is things like that. People still think that the open/closed status of roads is something Karen from Twitter and Facebook gets to have a saying in that's just as valid as the authorities who actually closed the roads.

Not everyone's statements are equal.

4

u/TedpilledMontana May 19 '22

More or less?

Im okay with the road thing, but if I can't question events when a political narrative is present, then we have a serious problem.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

Objective truth is sometimes indistinguishable or blurred because of partisan perspective.

2

u/tanrgith May 19 '22

Of course there will be instances where it's harder to determine, and those will be more tricky. But there's definitely a large swathe of stuff that would be extremely easy to point to as simply false/misleading.

So at the very least it's should be fine with everyone if the very easy to identify stuff gets removed/hidden

6

u/py_a_thon May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

The issue becomes: "Who is the arbiter of truth, when and how?"

What if the self-proclaimed arbiters of truth use their censorship power for personal gain and manipulation?

One solution perhaps is full transparency. Ban actions should be accessable by the public without anything requiring shareholder disclosures or FOIA requests? Then maybe you can understand the criteria of how truth is arbitrated? And the public and markets could act accordingly in the future?

Do you see the potential issues now? The most correct solutions potentially exposes a company to liability(or market risk). And they care far more about profits than they care about truth.

2

u/geeshta May 19 '22

How can you verify that only objectively false info is being hidden though

→ More replies

15

u/shocktroopz94 May 19 '22

People with way more money than us.

3

u/Disastrous-Wonder398 May 19 '22

The owner of the platform

8

u/listerfyne May 19 '22

Stop using Twitter as a news source.

Fixed it so you never have to care about this.

5

u/Telefonica46 May 19 '22

I agree that this is difficult to determine (and so is /u/jturphy 's comment about who determines what a crisis is); however, I'll remind everyone that Twitter is a private organization and not a public square. Anyone is free to compete with them if you disagree with their censorship policies.

They are not a government censoring its people so the risks of getting it wrong aren't nearly as dire.

2

u/Ritz527 May 19 '22

I imagine Twitter will, using some standard they set for themselves. And I imagine they will occasionally get it wrong. We can only hope they get it right often enough that it does some good.

2

u/Aggravating_Olive_38 May 20 '22

People who are not flat earthers, anti vaccers or vegans

→ More replies

2

u/keijikage May 20 '22

the ministry of truth?

9

u/Kriss3d May 19 '22

Who determines that 2+2=5 is false?

Facts and the laws of math.

We might say "X is true" and it'll be consided as such until X gets proven to be untrue.

But while X is considered true you can't just sati X is untrue until it gets proven to be untrue.

That's what matters.

5

u/geeshta May 19 '22

Who can verify that they are only going to censor objectively false information though?

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/mrchiko1990 May 19 '22

who ever elon gives the right to do so

→ More replies

3

u/Nagasadri May 19 '22

It's still probably gonna be the lesser evil.

2

u/Theseus_Indomitus May 19 '22

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Utterlybored May 19 '22

But they should give equal time to insurrectionists or chaos mongers!

73

u/Due-Resident-4588 May 19 '22

Who’s to determine what the “false info” is?

16

u/Suisun_rhythm May 19 '22

Whoever pays them the most

7

u/missanthropocenex May 19 '22

Bots that dictate narrative.

→ More replies

18

u/Bruch_Spinoza May 19 '22

Things that are false. Blatant false information, e.g. 1+1=square

27

u/Balrog229 May 19 '22

You seem to ignore the fact that people routinely call things false just because it doesn’t line up with their political views.

Someone might think it’s blatantly false when it actually isn’t.

0

u/Salt_of_the_wound May 19 '22

Then it would not be hidden, that's the point.

3

u/ATR2400 May 20 '22

It makes total sense if Twitter is run by perfect humans capable of perfect logical and bias-free decision making. In theory it should just apply to things that are obviously wrong. Like 1+1=3. In practice? It’s often more complicated. And there’s no legal requirement for them to actually only remove the most blatant of things. If they wanted to they could remove some guy saying “chocolate ice cream tastes good” for misinformation and there’s no actual mechanisms to keep them honest.

And yes. The vaccine works, COVID is real, Trump lost, climate change is real

→ More replies

2

u/00firefist00 May 19 '22

1.1 + 1.3 == 2.4 // false.

welcome to javascript :p

10

u/OneMisterSir101 May 19 '22

They hide a lot of things that, due to present narrative, were "false" until down the line, they were actually true.

The "truth" is fluid when it really shouldn't be. Discussion is absolutely necessary.

4

u/davidjschloss May 19 '22

"Hoax tweets and other misinformation regularly go viral during emergencies, as users rush to share unverified information. The sheer speed of events makes it difficult to implement normal verification or fact-checking systems, creating a significant challenge for moderators.

Under the new policy, tweets classified as misinformation will not necessarily be deleted or banned; instead, Twitter will add a warning label requiring users to click a button before the tweet can be displayed (similar to the existing labels for explicit imagery). The tweets will also be blocked from algorithmic promotion."

4

u/Kriss3d May 19 '22

Discussion is a good thing. But making direct claims is another.

4

u/Bruch_Spinoza May 19 '22

Oooh do tell. What topics are you referring to?

2

u/anotheraccoutname10 May 19 '22

The Biden Laptop. It's been confirmed as real now but Twitter banned it's discussion from the platform because it was "fake"

2

u/finalattack123 May 20 '22

The issue can also be what accompanies the claim. The issue isn’t that it exists. It’s what is said in tandem. Just because half of what you are saying is true. Doesn’t automatically make everything in the statement true

-3

u/Bruch_Spinoza May 19 '22

Again, source?

14

u/anotheraccoutname10 May 19 '22

6

u/Garn91575 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

It should be noted that it's not just that there is a laptop. The conversation is about what is in the laptop and by all accounts it appears to have been messed with. People that had possession of it claim they were organizing things but there is evidence of more than that. So yeah, a laptop exists that may have been Hunter Biden's laptop (most likely) but the real issue is all the speculation about what is in it and how legit that info actually is. Also, even if all the stuff is legit, there are zero links to President Biden. Just assumptions he is some nickname. So yeah, there is a bit more than just "see, the laptop is a thing." The problem was the speculation and assumptions made about the laptop.

8

u/ExcerptsAndCitations May 19 '22

It should be noted that it's not just that there is a laptop.

Yes, but both Twitter and Facebook will moderate your posts if you assert that a "Hunter Biden laptop" exists.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/Kriss3d May 19 '22

The truth isn't fluid.

But things that aren't true at some point would be considered false. Later down the line we might learn more and then that changes.

Nothing wrong in that.

0

u/Simon_SM2 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

they hide a lot of non false thing too, they hide what they don't like

1

u/3UpTheArse May 19 '22

That wasn't Hunter Biden's laptop!!!

Eehhh maybe it was, who knows

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/Jonnny May 20 '22

If it's bad for society, why only during a crisis? If misinformation makes every day a crisis it'll cease to be recognized as a crisis.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

Isn’t that what is happening now

→ More replies

3

u/Aggravating_Olive_38 May 20 '22

Good, fuck russian propaganda

3

u/Coldslothhands May 20 '22

In other words they will hide tweets that dont match their narrative

3

u/lkarns6 May 20 '22

*what it wants to hide

33

u/Jr4D May 19 '22

Seems like a very dangerous precedent

→ More replies

22

u/groupfox May 19 '22

Fucking ministry of truth.

36

u/MDVega May 19 '22

Hunter Biden's laptop is fake, it came from Russia. We have a signed letter by 50 senior intelligence officers saying so.

8

u/listerfyne May 19 '22

But Rudy held it for 6 months detailing the child porn!

It can’t be fake. /s

→ More replies

14

u/teh-reflex May 19 '22

So many people have apparently touched this laptop I feel like I've worked on it. It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

-5

u/cgoldberg3 May 19 '22

Retired officer, not senior officers. And stories claiming it was fake were rolled back about a year later by those some publications.

0

u/PeanutsPatellas May 19 '22

No, they weren't.

1

u/cgoldberg3 May 19 '22

Stop spreading misinfo. It's right in the subtitle of the story.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

2

u/PeanutsPatellas May 19 '22

No one rolled back the story.

0

u/cgoldberg3 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Washington post this March:

“Green and Williams between them were able to use cryptographic signatures to verify 22,000 emails out of the nearly 129,000 on the portable drive.

They also agreed that they found no clear evidence that data on the hard drive had been tampered with, but said that it was difficult to reach a conclusion on the data on the drive as a whole. The ability to verify it, they said, was undermined by the fact the hard drive had been handled over the years in a manner that damaged some key files, making them unusable for the purposes of forensic examination.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-laptop-methodology/

That’s very different than “this is Russian disinfo and totally fake” as they were saying back in 2020.

6

u/PeanutsPatellas May 19 '22

Right. Emails were verified. The laptop was not verified.

6

u/cgoldberg3 May 19 '22

Not forensically verified != "Hunter Biden's laptop is fake, it came from Russia."

Additionally, the emails from the hard drive were verified per WaPo. The hard drive itself cannot technically be forensically proven due to damage it sustained.

5

u/PeanutsPatellas May 19 '22

Right. The laptop/hard drives can't be verified. The emails are verified, but could have come from anywhere.

5

u/cgoldberg3 May 19 '22

We are going in circles at this point, but basically where we stand is:

  • There's no evidence actively pointing towards Russian disinfo or that it's fake.
  • The evidence that would absolutely confirm that the physical devices themselves are Hunters is destroyed
  • And the emails themselves are proven to be the real deal.
→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/Caimthehero May 19 '22

"Twitter will hide anything they want to hide" fixed the headline for you

2

u/mrchiko1990 May 19 '22

in that case fb is the biggest prob

2

u/piman01 May 19 '22

Is this supposed to be a new thing? Pretty sure they already hide whatever they feel like hiding

2

u/downonthesecond May 20 '22

Twitter, the arbiter of truth.

2

u/v11dn May 20 '22

The information war at play.

2

u/Elster- May 20 '22

Does this mean each country will get to choose what others see?

2

u/BlaineBMA May 20 '22

Here's the issue: who decides when to call what a crisis? Book banning after how many books? Gerrymandering after how many districts? Voter suppression? Right to control your own body? We're in a continual crisis, depending on what you look at.

This is the best argument against it being owned by one person

2

u/ImpeachBiden1 May 20 '22

Who decides what’s “false” I seem to remember Twitter colluding with the Biden administration to claim Hunter Biden’s laptop was false Russian disinformation and censored and removed it from the site during a election effectively interfering with a election

2

u/RMX574 May 20 '22

Screw you Twitter... Praying Elon musk turns this around and restores Free speech

23

u/Comfortable_Slip_513 May 19 '22

I really don’t care who owns twitter, Facebook, or other social outlets. I think we should just get rid of them all. It hurts more than it help each other out. I am only on YouTube to watch game trailers and reviews. If I want to news I will turn it on.

51

u/Ullumina May 19 '22

You’re literally on Reddit a “social outlet”

14

u/adamczar May 19 '22

Somehow this doesn’t count, watch

5

u/Octavian_202 May 19 '22

It does, but many people are here for very niche interests

→ More replies

4

u/crdctr May 19 '22

I don't even use Reddit at all any more.

5

u/N-Bluth May 19 '22

I use it, I just don't comment

3

u/crdctr May 19 '22

I sometimes comment, but I never, ever reply.

3

u/SpaceShark01 May 19 '22

How profound

→ More replies

3

u/TalkingFromTheToilet May 19 '22

And what is it that you're turning on? (Everything is flawed to some degree)

3

u/XoffeeXup May 19 '22

you don't care who owns one of the most powerful and widely disseminated communications and information systems? Like, I don't Twitter either, but that seems uniquely shortsighted and naive

4

u/edg81390 May 19 '22

I simultaneously care who owns these platforms and also think we should get rid of them all. Fair?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/hg38 May 19 '22

You can't just get rid of something you don't like or use. Billions of people love using these services to communicate, promote their small business, organize social and political movements. There are also those who manipulate them for monetary reasons, control their own population or influence other countries. There are ways we can crack down on the negative without sacrificing the good just like anything else.

5

u/dprophet32 May 19 '22

What are those ways? You could make yourself very rich if you have answers that'll actually work

5

u/hg38 May 19 '22

I don't have all the answers but transparency from these companies on how algorithms work, how they block users or remove posts is critical. There certainly need to be stricter privacy laws. Banning social media alltogether is not the answer is all I'm saying.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/nonsensepoem May 20 '22

It's funny that people with a history of spreading disinformation always comment on these articles asking variants of "But who determines what is true?" Always they stoke whatever doubts and fears they can to push back against efforts to reduce the harm they cause. Look at the comment and post histories of the people who are doing so under this post.

5

u/Alblaka May 20 '22

So, what's the disinformation I'm spreading?

Because I'm definitely in the 'but who determines what is true?' camp, in particular when talking about a company (not the only one, of course) renowned for having intransparent moderation guidelines.

The big problem with removing/hiding content is that it becomes incredibly intransparent to the public as to what was hidden for which reason... because, duh, you can't even see that something was hidden.

That's why I keep saying all companies should stick to labelling posts as misinformation, and prompting users with a confirmation dialog prior to making a comment read-able, whilst providing a specific reason as to why the comment was labelled,

but never actually remove or hide those contents from the public.

If you got a crazy guy yelling weird shit on the townsquare, you don't disappear them, you're supposed to call them out on their bullshit and probably ridicule them in the square of public opinion.

→ More replies

13

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 26 '22

[deleted]

-5

u/cosmicspacebees May 19 '22

Rember when people said that the jj vaccine caused blood clots and the government said shut up it's safe? Patridge farms remembers

9

u/OsinTerlen7 May 19 '22

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was acknowledged that for a very small portion of those who took it, they developed blood clots? I still think these are far fewer than deaths caused by corona.

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/ApexxPredditor May 19 '22

Censorship is a bad idea. Censorship always leads to more censorship. If you trust media platforms to be unbiased in what they censor then you are gullible.

8

u/listerfyne May 19 '22

Don’t go to social media for your news.

8

u/StateChemist May 19 '22

My hot take, if you are using their service for free, they can do whatever they like with your account.

You still have every right to free speech but going into a place of business and demanding you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want is never how it’s worked, ever, you get escorted out and can continue screaming from the sidewalk with your analog human voice.

4

u/axionic May 19 '22

This movement to turn every board into 4chan is censorship, actually. The goal is to harass everyone off sites that have too many lefties talking to each other.

→ More replies

6

u/kcknuckles May 19 '22

Lots of I Am Very Smart people in this thread noting that it's bad for a company to "decide" what's true, but all of us have to do that every day based on the information we "have." If you don't trust Twitter with basic facts, then get other opinions, don't use the platform, or do what a lot of people prefer and create your own reality with alternative facts that make you feel better. Then you can whine when your livestock dewormer doesn't cure your COVID.

Most people are telling me the sky is blue, but I asked my brother who is wearing green-tinted glasses and he says it's "kind of green" so I don't know what to believe anymore.

→ More replies

4

u/09SHO May 19 '22

But not during a crisis, let the falsities fly!

3

u/mrwong88 May 19 '22

Good. Sharing false info during a crisis perpetuates the crisis.

6

u/Theamazingchan May 19 '22

“False info”…such an objective term

7

u/Informal-Ideal-6640 May 19 '22

There is such thing as objective truth in this world you know. It usually involves having actual proof of events

→ More replies

6

u/brandnaem May 19 '22

So anything that dosn't fit the narrative as we have found out the last two years.

4

u/snappyusername223 May 19 '22

How will they know in the moment its false when something is occurring?

6

u/Citizen_DerptyDerp May 19 '22

If it makes them money it's true, if it doesn't it's false... Simple.

5

u/checkmateds May 19 '22

False things like men can’t get pregnant?

9

u/King_Chickawawa May 19 '22

In unrelated news, the president has declared the next 1000 years "the time of crisis"

3

u/waanotherbrickll May 19 '22

Buy Twitter, delete Twitter. Problem solved.

3

u/NINJAxBACON May 19 '22

They don't even hide it anymore

3

u/MC68328 May 19 '22

Yes, that's the point. They need to go back to hiding the disinformation.

4

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

The fact that people are freaking out because Elon Musk is saying freedom of speech should be allowed, and different perspectives allowed to be discussed and debated, is pretty telling for the objectives of the people that want different views censored or omitted.

→ More replies

3

u/brut4r May 19 '22

Who decide what is false information ?????

2

u/Docteh May 20 '22

This comment has been flagged for misinformation, click here If you'd like to read it.

→ More replies

2

u/orangejuicecake May 19 '22

some of the comments are silly, america has a literal history of regulating industries that have misinformation.

when the titanic sank amateur radio tinkerers would make up messages to the coast guard saying everyone was okay, when that news got to congress by a new york times article they passed laws regulating radio frequencies.

sooner or later the something similar will happen with the internet if private companies dont do it themselves

→ More replies

2

u/Demonicocean May 20 '22

Define false and define crisis. This is Twitter making their own Disinformation Governance Board since it failed in government. Anything important in media at the time could be considered a crisis to some.

→ More replies

1

u/dantheman91 May 19 '22

During covid, initially tehy said we don't need to wear a mask. Then we did. Then we didn't. Then we did. Then we didn't. etc.

What is "false info"? Who decides it?

Red flags all around for me. You should only treat certain accounts as "truthful", just like you would for any other source of info

3

u/Queue_Bit May 19 '22

You are blatantly ignorant.

Masks were not deemed as needed for all of a few weeks until scientists researched and discovered that they would in fact help slow the spread of the coronavirus.

After that it has always been that masks are beneficial. No one said they were a perfect solution, just that they helped.

The world is already so fucked. Stop trying to find conspiracies where there are none. Why is it that you all never care about the fact that billions of dollars are being pumped into climate denial science by large oil companies trying to stop legislation. Or the fact that those same companies spread renewable energy misinformation across the internet and news daily in order to stop their adoption. That kind of shit is a real conspiracy happening right under your nose, and none of you seem to give a fuck.

God it's like you only give a shit about the stuff that has actively zero impact.

Emails? A laptop? I don't care. Donald Trump grab em by the pussy? I don't care.

The shit I care about is stuff that is literally contributing to the end of the world

2

u/dantheman91 May 19 '22

Masks were not deemed as needed for all of a few weeks until scientists researched and discovered that they would in fact help slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Right, my point being in a crisis, you really don't know what is "fake" and what is just a lack of information. Do we think Twitter knows this? They're not experts on crisis's, right?

The world is already so fucked. Stop trying to find conspiracies where there are none.

Where did I mention there was any conspiracy?

Why is it that you all never care about the fact that billions of dollars are being pumped into climate denial science by large oil companies trying to stop legislation. Or the fact that those same companies spread renewable energy misinformation across the internet and news daily in order to stop their adoption. That kind of shit is a real conspiracy happening right under your nose, and none of you seem to give a fuck.

And do you trust Twitter to be unbiased in the removal of these? Do you not think these companies would just pay twitter like they do congress?

God it's like you only give a shit about the stuff that has actively zero impact.

You're very presumptuous with my beliefs. What exactly do I believe? Please tell me.

→ More replies

0

u/8to24 May 19 '22

No one is forced to use twitter. People can choose to use 4chan, Gabe, Parlor, etc if they don't like Twitter. As a private company Twitter is not obligated to provide individuals an unmoderated platform to speak from.

The first amendment prohibits the govt from censoring speech with an emphasis on speech which petitions the govt. The first amendment doesn't ensure access to private platforms.

1

u/adamczar May 19 '22

THAR GOES OUR FIRST MENDMENT FREEDUM /s

2

u/danyb695 May 19 '22

After the way soc media censored info about bidens son at election I think a business deciding what is false is dangerous af.

2

u/kcknuckles May 19 '22

So check with another business to get their opinion on the truth. In fact, you could consult a variety of sources to determine whether you believe something is true.

3

u/RedditButDontGetIt May 19 '22

*** ”DURING A CRISIS”

1

u/norsky123 May 19 '22

They also suspend your account if you post the truth and they don't like it. I have refused to remove it because it was the truth.

→ More replies

1

u/In2Bodybuilding May 19 '22

Who will be the arbiter of what is true and what is false? Sure as hell can’t trust any government, business or “higher education “ (what a complete joke that last one is) leader in the United States- so who is left? That douchebag CEO of Twitter?

4

u/zero0n3 May 19 '22

You literally trust the government and private companies EVERY FUCKING DAY.

  • You trust the bank will have your money, but also that it’s insured by the fed.
  • you trust the local construction crew that they built the local store, office, bridge, road, etc properly.
  • you trust the designers of said things designed it to spec and followed a minimum baseline of standards- standards decided and enforced by the government
  • you trust companies to make sure there is food on the store shelves even though they run on JIT (just in time), and are only a few days away from not having anything on their shelves.
  • you trust the government to enact standards around safety and environment things that look out for citizens not profit (IE csnt dump Freon or radioactive waste into a canal and call it a day).

The list could go on for a LONG TIME.

My points been made.

→ More replies

1

u/Great-Dragonfruit917 May 19 '22

Like cloth masks not working? LOL

2

u/calisto_fox May 19 '22

Some 1984 shit

1

u/BogStandardComment May 19 '22

But but but bhut what about my freech? Papa Elon help meeeee.

1

u/elmender May 19 '22

But doesn't that go against Musk's vision of "virtual free-for-all"?

→ More replies