| The initial warning label should have been simple and kept to objectively defensible claims. "Donald Trump said people in California do not need to register to receive a ballot. This is false. See $governmentSite for further information". It was a mistake to use media organizations with partisan opinion sections as fact-checkers. The most important people to reach with that warning label are the most likely to dismiss any information from those media organizations. A warning label is useless without trust. But, I am optimistic about Twitter's use of fact-checking. I've watched both sides of the political spectrum slip deeper and deeper into delusion, and this is one of the few glimmers of hope. Twitter has the platform, the reach, and the power to effect legitimate positive change. I feel increasingly every day that the truth is slipping between our fingers. This feels like one of our few chances to realistically combat misinformation. I meet people from both sides of the political aisle who have incredible blind spots. People who actively follow politics and yet often have never encountered basic counter-arguments to their narratives. The modern media landscape allows people to live ensconced in an information bubble. Twitter is the most bipartisan platform that exists, and thus in the prime position to pop those bubbles. I appreciate that Twitter is attempting this step. This has almost no likelihood of increasing users and a strong likelihood of decreasing users. They have chosen to do something that will likely hurt their bottom line out of conscience. |