|
|
|
|
|
by sixstringtheory
2208 days ago
|
|
What statement was made by Twitter that could be followed blindly? All I saw was "Get the facts about mail in ballots". You can only infer a bias on that based on your own preconceived notion about Twitter's biases. A completely ignorant and unbiased individual may just as likely think "Twitter wants to show me why Trump is right" as they are to think "Twitter wants to show me why Trump is wrong". If you really want to have people > reading into important topics like this and forming opinions without being bated (sic) then you should be all for this kind of neutrally positioned link to more information. I'm certainly open to entertaining alternatives, though. |
|
I am for neutrality. I’m also a realist. IFF they could pull this off universally, in that all tweets are subject to these same fact checks, then I’m all for it. Removing personal biases of the person doing the fact checks will be a challenge but we can achieve this through multiple fact checkers with specific biases. Like the bulls and bears statements you find with stocks. But we cannot achieve this, we lack both the peoplepower and technology given Twitters scale. Short of it being universally applied to all accounts it can’t meet the definition of neutral. Therefor, don’t do it at all. Instead someone else using Twitter can reply to his tweets with the fact check. This keeps Twitters hands and potential biases entirely out of a very complicated topic.