[nicc]

Yes, of course it is. Most people will all of a sudden ignore someone's message.

I have no idea why anyone would argue in favor of Twitter. When has it become required to be an expert in the field to be granted the privilege of leaving a comment on a forum? When has it become unacceptable to lie? People lie all the time. Advertisements lie to you, politicians lie to you, your mom lies to you.

It's really annoying that the truth police is going to go and check your tweets or comment—even if you ignore the fact that the line between facts and opinions isn't always easy to see. Even facts like Taiwan being its own country or part of China or the Armenian genocide can be denied, and people should be able to say that—and perhaps rightfully get shit for that, but still be able to say it.

We're going back to the Middle Ages, where if you say Earth isn't flat or God doesn't exist (replace with global warming isn't caused by humans, Covid-19 is man-made), you're executed.

Sad.

[mplanchard]

There’s a difference between you or I saying something incorrect (willfully or not) on the Internet and a world leader doing the same. Twitter already distinguishes famous people, world leaders, etc. in a variety of ways. It seems reasonable that this would be one of them, given that the potential reach and impact of anything they say far, far exceeds that of your average Tweeter.

[nkkollaw]

Is there, though? Why should Twitter be in charge of deciding who's a world leader or famous enough to get checked?

Who is Twitter to fact-check world leaders?

When world leaders rarely tell the truth, how can anyone realistically think that such a system could even work, even if it made sense?

[bostik]

Well, here's the funny bit: Twitter doesn't need to decide. If someone in a major power, such as a G20 member country, is in a government position, they are a world leader. And because things are always contested, that same category can be extended to high-ranking members of opposition.

I'm going to take you at your word and accept that world leaders rarely tell the truth: so they should ALL get the same treatment then. But instead of stamping their output with just "fact-check this", why not unilaterally label all of it with: "may contain lies, omissions and half-truths"?

[nicc]

> why not unilaterally label all of it with: "may contain lies, omissions and half-truths"?

Even if Twitter's motive was to help its users, that's just common sense. Does Twitter have such a low opinion of its users that it needs to treat them like 5-year-olds?

[dspillett]

Yes, how sad that incorrect facts will no longer stand unquestioned...

If I'm wrong I like being corrected. It means I learn something. Of course if I think the correction is incorrect then things get a bit more complex and a longer discussion will ensue.

[nkkollaw]

Exactly.

Also, if they're false it should be easy to correct them.

Anyone who thinks about this for more than 20 seconds will see that this is about control, not protecting poor Twitter users who supposedly can't decide for themselves.

[dspillett]

> it should be easy to correct them

Unfortunately many will read and forward the original post, and be ignorant (sometimes deliberately so) of any corrections.

Looking at it the other way: if responding with corrections is so powerful why not just respond to the post with a "potential misinformation" warning with a correction, perhaps citing sources that show the information to be correct? In fact citing sources in the first place could remove the problem entirely if the information is verifiably correct that way.

> this is about control

Correct: controlling the spread of misinformation.

> not protecting poor Twitter users who supposedly can't decide for themselves

No, it is trying to protect twitter users who won't think for themselves.

[thatwasunusual]

> Yes, of course it is. Most people will all of a sudden ignore someone's message.

Because Twitter adds an annotion to a statement? An annotation that leads to facts/more information?

Why?

> When has it become unacceptable to lie?

If a world leader does that, it needs to be addressed. Would you accept all the information that comes out of other countries, for example North Korea?

[nkkollaw]

> Because Twitter adds an annotion to a statement? An annotation that leads to facts/more information?

Why should Twitter do that. They're a tech company and are in no position to add to anyone's statements—specially a world leader's.

> If a world leader does that, it needs to be addressed. Would you accept all the information that comes out of other countries, for example North Korea?

It already gets address at the next elections. Even if it doesn't, are you saying that Twitter is the right institution to address lying from world leaders?

Does the leader of North Korea post on Twitter? Why are you comparing the leader of the freest country with the most oppressive?

So many questions...

[nmfisher]

Let me get this right - you're saying everyone should have the freedom to spread lies, half-truths or misleading statements, but that noone should have the freedom to call them out on it?

Twitter isn't requiring anything from anybody to comment on anything. They're just putting forward their own opinion. Much like Trump is putting forward his. The only difference is that people trust Twitter more than the current POTUS.

[nkkollaw]

> Let me get this right - you're saying everyone should have the freedom to spread lies, half-truths or misleading statements, but that noone should have the freedom to call them out on it?

Twitter should decide what business they're in. If they're a platform for people to discuss ideas, they should stay out of expressing their opinion, absolutely. What's next, is Microsoft going to fact-check what you're saying while you talk on Skype and add a message over your voice?

> The only difference is that people trust Twitter more than the current POTUS.

That's so cool! Perhaps you've found who can beat Trump in 2020—Twitter. I thought there was no hope, but maybe...