Twitter is testing new ways to fight misinformation — including a community-based points system
Category: Meta for use by Perrie RA and moderators. Member meta goes into the group Metafied found on top tab
Via: perrie-halpern • 4 years ago • 66 commentsBy: Ben Collins
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Twitter is experimenting with adding brightly colored labels directly beneath lies and misinformation posted by politicians and other public figures, according to a leaked demo of new features sent to NBC News.
Twitter confirmed that the leaked demo, which was accessible on a publicly available site, is one possible iteration of a new policy to target misinformation. The company does not have a date to roll out any new misinformation features.
In this version, disinformation or misleading information posted by public figures would be corrected directly beneath a tweet by fact-checkers and journalists who are verified on the platform and possibly by other users who would participate in a new "community reports" feature, which the demo claims is "like Wikipedia."
"We're exploring a number of ways to address misinformation and provide more context for tweets on Twitter," a spokesperson said. "Misinformation is a critical issue and we will be testing many different ways to address it."
The demo features bright red and orange badges for tweets that are deemed "harmfully misleading" in nearly the same size as the tweet itself displayed prominently directly below the tweet that contains the harmful misinformation.
Examples of misinformation included a false tweet about whistleblowers by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., a tweet about gun background checks by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and a tweet by an unverified account posting a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The leaked demo includes a tweet about gun background checks by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., an example of medical misinformation and a tweet about whistleblowers by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Twitter
The leaked demo also shows an example of medical misinformation, including an example about the new coronavirus by a verified Twitter account.
The impending policy rollout comes as the 2020 election season is ramping up, with Twitter playing a central role in some of the daily give and take among the candidates. On Thursday, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's campaign posted an edited video that made it seem as if there had been a long pause when he asked during Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate whether the other candidates had ever started a business.
Last month, Twitter announced a policy to ban tweets that "deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm," such as deep fakes .
In one iteration of the demo, Twitter users could earn "points" and a "community badge" if they "contribute in good faith and act like a good neighbor" and "provide critical context to help people understand information they see."
The impending policy rollout comes as the 2020 election season is ramping up. Twitter
The points system could prevent trolls or political ideologues from becoming moderators if they differ too often from the broader community in what they mark as false or misleading.
"Together, we act to help each other understand what's happening in the world, and protect each other from those who would drive us apart," the demo reads.
Twitter reiterated to NBC News that the community reporting feature is one of several possibilities that may be rolled out in the next several weeks.
"This is a design mock-up for one option that would involve community feedback," the spokesperson said.
In the demo, community members are asked whether a tweet is "likely" or "unlikely" to be "harmfully misleading." They are then asked to rate how many community members would answer the same on a sliding scale of 1 to 100 before elaborating on why the tweet is harmfully misleading.
"The more points you earn, the more your vote counts," the demo reads.
Some other websites have successfully used community moderation to regulate their platforms. Information on Wikipedia has been moderated by anonymous users since its inception in 2001. It is frequently vandalized in breaking news situations by political actors, which can sometimes lead more powerful moderators to temporarily lock down pages.
Reddit also has hundreds of volunteer moderators who set and enforce rules for its many communities.
CORRECTION (Feb. 20, 2020, 10:45 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated when Twitter will release new features to counter misinformation. There is currently no timeline; they are not scheduled to roll out on March 5. The article also misstated the leadership role held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She is the speaker of the House, not the House majority leader
Tags
Who is online
241 visitors
he demo features bright red and orange badges for tweets that are deemed "harmfully misleading" in nearly the same size as the tweet itself displayed prominently directly below the tweet that contains the harmful misinformation."
oh boy, they already designated Orange for o
ur LYING mental midget prez
CORRECTION (Feb. 20, 2020, 10:45 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated when Twitter will release new features
Thought this would have been in a color as well
Well this will be nice for those who want to live in a bubble echo chamber and surrender to group think.
So a scarlet letter...
I guarantee 'public officials' would get involved somehow.
They're going to have to ban their number 1 cash cow @therealdonaldtrump.
Bright colored badges? Really? The Stormy Who Cult are impervious to truth. Let them eat the cake and wash it down with the anti-freeze laced Kool Aid.
Collapsed By Community
Words I remember well.
Some people take my terse for snark but that's exactly how I learned to put little effort into an answer - an opinion to be trashed. They do it here with author O/T.
Squiggy that is not true. Although an item might be flagged as author O/T, the mods do look over the comment to see if they are trying to silence opposing opinions. If they are, we ignore the flag.
My problem with the vine was groups being able to self moderate. Some groups were fair, some never moderated and some took it to extremes and silenced any opposition.
What would happen with the collapsing is people would gang flag just to silence people.
That's just not so - with a big T.
True, true. And I mean it wasn't even subtle. If you had even a slightly contrary opinion, it was like covering yourself in sugar and walking into an ant colony.
I thought Dave said at one time it only took like ten or twelve flags to collapse.
I was even blocked from a very liberal group. The group owner didn't like something I had said.
I remember a time or two, some folks lost their flagging privileges over gang-collapsing. The mods announced it had happened, but never named names. I'm sure we all had our suspects, and I'd bet most of us who had a list of suspects were right on most of them.
Same. And one particular rogue admin deleted my comments that were in no way violations, but just disagreed with his comments. It harbored echo chambers.
Yeah some of us saw this played out by the left on NV, even going as far as to conspire with the moderators to get people banned off NV. Some people love a echo chamber.
I'd imagine those poor souls were overt-asked when the bots, astroturfers, and all-round miscreants and jerks who simply love seeing good projects/things torn down and shit-canned showed up demanding their slices of space, time, and conspiratorial content.
That could happen here. The road to good intentions is littered with good ideas which can be tainted, twisted, and over-topped. Look at Twitter. I'd imagine they never pictured their road to success and riches would collide with the delusions of so-called, world leaders! Oh it's true. It's true.
It was in no way just the left. There were several conservative groups where I would have comments deleted. Some were notorious.
Of course it wasn't. As I recall, the most frequent victim of gang-collapsing was Soph. Frequent collapse of her articles led to some on the right losing their flagging privileges.
Nevermind.
I'm speaking to the articles published by MSNBC to NV. If I go on a liberal page and spew right wing propaganda what do you think is going to happen? I think that's to be expected, why else would you create a left or right leaning page except to get a echo chamber?
On Facebook they have Occupy Democrats, how long do you think I lasted till I was blocked? one comment.
They got to be relentless on her.
I loved her photo essays around England.
Please. There was plenty of right-wing propaganda on the Vine. There were conservative nations with conservative admins. Those who were banned were banned on the basis of their behavior. Some doxxed other Viners. Some were perpetual re-regs. Some were racist. Some continually insulted others. And liberals were banned, too.
I remember Soph...yes, she was gang collapsed many times.
I am so glad this site does not allow gang collapsing!!!
If I don't like a thread, I just don't participate.
Re-regs were notorious.....most times you could spot a re-reg by the style of their posts.
I remember someone...can't think of their name, but they were nasty as all get out, was banned after it was found out they had a parachute account.
Where did I say there wasn't? Try reading what I said. I even said if I spewed right wing propaganda, did you catch that?
[deleted News Vine rule.]
[deleted CoC]
Sounds to me like, after laughing about left-wing echo chambers in your comment @7.2, you're defending echo chambers, so long as they're right-wing ones. Most inconsistent.
Also, you're the one complaining about gang-collapsing done by the left. A prolific left-wing poster was frequently gang-collapsed, while right-wing propaganda pieces routinely stood.
Wow, just freaking wow. How in the hell do you get that out of anything I said. No where in my comments did I say anything even resembling that.
Saying if I spew right wing propaganda on a left-wing page it is expected to be collapsed reads as echo chambers are okay as long as they are right wing ones?
[deleted]
Read this:
It is not unreasonable for someone to interpret the above as a one-sided commentary. You explicitly limited your comment to 'the left'. If you had not focused exclusively on the left then your objections would be well-justified. For example, the following …
Yeah some of us saw this played out on NV, even going as far as to conspire with the moderators to get people banned off NV. Some people love a echo chamber.
… does not imply this practice is just by the left.
I take it that you did not want to leave that impression. Good enough, correction noted. But you should at least recognize what your words implied.
[removed]
It was the left that conspired with mods on NV, that's a fact. The right had nothing to do with it.
Okay, then I should not note the correction ["Good enough, correction noted."].
I left the chance open that you were simply trying to clear things up. Now, based on your emotional reply, it does not look as though you intended to clear things up but rather to just lash out at Sandy.
From this comment, in response to Ender reporting that he had comments deleted in conservative groups on NV:
Really so from that you stretched it out that I was saying only right leaning echo chambers are good? In no way do I imply that right wing echo chambers are good left is bad. That is your delusions.
You laughed at the left-wingers agreeing with Steve Ott, and excused the right-wingers who deleted Ender's comments as just business as usual. Not much of a stretch to conclude that you accept for your own side that which you deride in the other.
[removed]
I sense no amount of reason will make a difference.
Go have a beer. There are far more important things to get upset over.
Calm.
What is there to reason, You felt the necessity to 'correct' my post when Sandy's is the exact same thing.
BTW it speaks volumes.
You actually believe you are upsetting someone? I'm actually laughing..at you.
Have a good night now.
I was not trying to upset you. I was trying to explain why Sandy would interpret your words as she did while telling you that I accept your word that you did not intend that as your meaning.
Your emotional reaction has nothing to do with me.
You didn't.
[deleted]
Oh so you are saying Sandy meant all conservatives?
[deleted]
I was not explaining how Sandy thinks. I was explaining how your words could be easily interpreted as Sandy did. In fact, her interpretation seems (to me) to be the most likely given your word choice.
As noted, there seems to be no reasoning with you.
( I am ignoring your strawman attempts and juvenile snark. )
You weren't?
[deleted]
Have a good night now, ya hear.
No, KD, I explained how your explicit use of 'the left' qualified your comment to focus only on the left. Not complicated.
Did you miss this?:
Your subsequent comments illustrate this. Given you will pretend to laugh at any response, you can laugh at this: ____________. There, and I did not waste any of my time.
for me, near the end without moderation, i was in my glory without having to restrain my writing when dealing with opposition i TRULY DID N JOY ENGAGING WITH, till there would/could only be one poster left standing, as i was much angrier then , and i believe much more creative and sometimes, even a little ambiguous, leaving my opposition whom thought they were head and shoulders above, scratching their own heads after me showing them the love
Yes, i did thoroughly enjoy no moderation conversation, but i would always look for those looking for a foe, and possibly not exactly the weaker minded, as no fun would be how i'd find it unless adversary was competent. And they were, and NASTY as well. I did not like, at all, those who would prey on ones attempting to remain above the fray, in civil discourse, and be stalked into true discomfort, as their pursuers were cause for contact with the authorities, which still didn;t dissuade those hell bent. Loretta ? who was here a few months back, and Captain CM were an uncomfortable example, that i enjoyed exampling on, till the hunter became the hunted, cause i truly DID NOT CARE. I was taught to stand for those who may not be so able to do so by themselves, and when moral high ground is obtained, it's all downhill for whoever as i can sometimes go as high as others, and as low as any, and i enjoyed it so. As confrontation was the vent of my frustration and my frustration was GREAT, possibly not for all.
I was extremely angry for a spell, and believe it or not, it was and did show & tell, so to school we went.
I'm MUCH calmer now, but lately, there is frustration a brewing with debates that imitates elementary school yard taunting with undaunting frivolous tit for tat, ass is phat, i no ewe are n how about that, cause i said so style bickering is the lowering of the Barr that Rushed to Limbaugh under are those so right, they're obviously Damn WRONG, as they tout the Liar in Chief as the teflon Pam sprayed with Pee from Russian prostitutes who had to oui', as they couldn't say no, as they had to go, as in no way ever guilty
but of what, besides in no sense and no morally ethical lesser than equivalence unto no other, especially Obama the half brother, as 15,000 and counting, yet guilty of NOTHING is their claim, the Dems fault and are to blame, as they gaslight out the flame flickered like a bugger as they don't nose, as he banged him some hose, they held theirs, and their knows no other could at a presidential level, be so plumb wrong for the position
he's
compromised US all in,
a contortionist with the thinnest of skin in the non game were inn, and NOT TO STAY
thankfully for all
all i gots to say
PS What was the thesis of this feces again...ah
oh yea, time for another COCkTAIL , N to all a good evening, i've got to go raise hell in the el loco alcohol distribution centers, cause it is even better in actual face to face socialization disgrace AMEN
i like to spin in polygons gone wild, like girls, butt with better shapes.
Can we install this on NT?
IwishIwishIwish..........
Sure we could (with Perrie's approval); adapted for NT. Let's first see if it works.
That would be awesome.
there woulld be nobody left to play with unfortunately.
Maybe, just do it on odd days till it evens out
I'd like to see how things go on Twitter. My worry is that it would end up being an echo chamber and we have never been about that. I too remember the "collapsed by community" and even wrote about on NV at the time, and I didn't approve of it.
We have Russia interference in our elections. We have Twitter "considering" if, maybe, possibly, somebody might, we can do something about it. And ignorant people going about championing disinformation. Well disinformation destroys lives, effort, and peace. Disinformation has to be waded through. In times of distress, people should, must, hunker down in order to protect what really does matter. Truth matters. It's all we've got.
It is distressing to see Twitter at this late juncture equivocate on what-when-where-how-if-possibly questions and answers. It is a dime late and a nickle short, in my opinion.
How things go on Twitter. Maybe, coulda, shoulda, woulda, they ain't, because they can't, and time of the essence, just simply is not there to be availed of before any harm can be done.
NOTE: The above is a rant by me. I am having that type of a newsy morning! Use it or lose it.
Me too. There are all sorts of ways this could work poorly. In the end, there may be some aspect that would be advantageous to NT. If not, nothing lost.
I suppose I should have marked my post as sarcasm. Personally, I think it is a bad idea. It is one of those things that sounds good, but take it to its logical extreme and you will find that it may not be that wonderful.
As far as Twitter goes, here is one view:
Twitter's New 'Deceptive Video' Labeling Plan Immediately Abused To Attack a Silly Joke Ad from Bloomberg Nobody is being misled by this obviously joking debate clip. But this sort of ginned-up outrage will be used to target political opponents.
"We shouldn't expect a tech company to take responsibility for assessing how true political videos are. That's our jobs as consumers. "
I've tried to be consistent in saying that it is up to the individual to come to the truth, not the group. If I am not, please let me know.
I understand and agree with a cautious approach, but as CB stated, it is our duty, our responsibility, as American citizens to call out those who have been mislead and purposely sent astray, so as a political agenda can be brought to fruition at a cost of tuition that is Seriously Dividing our United States. To me, it is the equavalent of putting our COUNTRY, above Perries bottom line and business, that i believe all here do appreciate, or we wouldn't be here. Just yesterday, as like every other day on here, people spread falsehoods/mistruths and even Blatant Lies, that have been spread amongst them, by extremeists on both sides, but one, consistantly WAY OVER THE BOUNDS of an actual TRUE REALITY, that they now more than ever, REFUSE TO SEE. Many cannot even entertain the thought of News they wish not to agree with. Now i have NO IDEA where this behavior might have been observed in our Government before, but the last few days and the impeachment farce exemplify behaviors that flat out LIE about what is happening in our country and in our government. Our potUS refuses to accept the fact RUSSIA HELPED HIS CAMPAIGN IN 2016, and is AGAIN, attempting to get him elected. WTF.
Bernie Sanders showed him what a TRUE LEADER would do, as he called out Russia for who and what they are, as Trumps reaction was to shoot then fire the messenger, after they had only done what the LAW REQUIRED OF THEM.
Fired by the President of the UNITED STATES FOR OBEYING THE LAW. Let that sink in a little. The President wants to now determine WHAT INTELLIGENCE is given to our Representatives ! THis should alarm ALL CITIZENS, and all while a bury their heads in the sand Senate DOES NOTHING to reign him in. Fire these FCKS !
They have SOLD US OUT, just as the DENIER in Chief has.
I would like to have a Truthiness day, where as ongoin never ending arguements are finally settled once and for all by unbiased fact checkers. This could be a trial balloon filled with mega hot air, and a decider of what IS,
actually True and Fair.
Just the insertion of my two nonsense .
Thanks TiG.
That's funny, look at the lefties that agree with your post, they just love them some echo chamber music...
FCK that. Give me some competent opposition
Wanna give me the names of the righties that have even bothered to read the post or comment? They are too busy in their own echo chambers.
Please read 7.1.7 before making any further comment.
Sure, what could possibly go wrong with this? There's probably zero chance anyone would ever abuse the system, right?
I would love to see people become better stewards of sharing. Moreover, kudos to Twitter for wanting to become a better 'house' on its block. I wrote my first thought on Twitter yesterday here and it was negative about all the bad branding coming its way. Today, no credit to me for sure because I stated nothing to them, they are looking to do something. It would seem that necessity to fix what is broken is coming full circle.
Nobodygood people don't like that kind of ugly! (I hope.)This feels like Twitter is trying to jump through a loophole in the law and it might actually work for them. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides liability protection for social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. The providers are considered to be only providing the means for communication and are therefore not responsible for the information users publish on their platforms.
However, we know that those providers are, in fact, concerned with the content appearing on their platforms. So, at minimum, they set up basic terms of service, codes of conduct, and so on. But if they move to actively censor content, they risk being seen as a publisher and would therefore lose the protections of Section 230. Letting users flag the content kind of takes it out of their hands, preserving their status, but also (they hope) resolving some of their more controversial content issues.
A cynic might see this as really (or at least, also) being a tool to guide public political discourse in a direction they prefer.
And to be checked by "Fact" checkers when flagged. Yeah right, there isn't one fact checker out there that doesn't show bias.
Some of us saw people waging needless and heedless political wars against other people, that is citizens, who simply wanted to plowy a decent, kind, 'homestead' on the internet somewhere. These citizens were and are being tracked down and hounded by noise-makers wanting no filters. The landscape and its internet, became a boiling cauldron stewing all sides together ultimately and indefinitely.