[lucideer]

It's great to see a deep analysis like this.

Recently Community Notes has been opened up to a significant enough % of the Twitter populous that you're starting to see a very large quantity of "spurious" notes (argumentative / sarcastic responses that aren't addressing facts - more appropriate as actual replies), with even one or two examples of such notes being approved, in many cases I'd guess because approvers found them entertaining rather than useful. That's lead to criticisms of CN as something "in decline".

I hope that's not the case - spurious notes don't actually do any harm (and are often very entertaining), but dismissal of CN as a system would: loss of reputation would mean a dilution of the impact of fact checks & context provision on rebutting misinformation.

Another possible concern is, while it seems obvious to most that CN isn't a feature that would have been conceived under Musk, and it's interesting to see it continue to thrive now, one wonders how long it will be tolerated (the example from the first screenshot in this article is telling). In possibly related news, Musk has recently shown an interest in influencing elections[0] in Ireland (Twitter EU HQ) in direct response to talks of EU "misinformation regulation".

[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1695545217133490453 (Gript Media is a far-right publication based in Ireland)

[nvm0n2]

> while it seems obvious to most that CN isn't a feature that would have been conceived under Musk

This isn't obvious at all. A big part of why Musk got upset with Twitter under its previous management was his dislike of centralized journalist-driven fact checking. He might not have come up with the algorithm but you can't claim it's living on borrowed time whilst simultaneously criticizing it for scaling up too fast.