On Tuesday, in the most that neither is a typical day in 2020, President Donald trump woke up, opened Twitter and pulnul a couple of messages about conspiracy theories, like one TV host with a cable, which he hates, many years ago someone was killed. Later the same day Twitter made the fateful decision to mark the President false information. Oddly enough, due to quite another series of tweets.
It was a bold step that has long been waiting for foes of trump and criticism of the “Twitter”. But it was a little awkward. Before the election, which is expected to be the most controversial in American history since the civil war, remains less than six months, but social media platforms still have not dealt with the checking of political information for accuracy.
Twitter decided to take extreme measures because of two tweets than the alleged consequences of voting by mail during a pandemic coronavirus:
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even printed out illegally & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2020
“No options (ZERO!) voting by mail would be a total fraud. Mailboxes will Rob and ballots to forge, it is illegal to print and sign fake signatures. The Governor of California sends them to millions of people, everyone, not understanding who they all are and on what grounds reside on the territory of the state. Over all the fact that specially trained people will tell them for whom they should vote and why, although some do not going to. The elections will be rigged. Never!”, tweeted trump.
Later that evening Twitter was added to the bottom of the tweet note: big exclamation mark and a link from the team Moments, “to get the facts about voting by mail”. Its bold headline reads: “the Statement trump that postal voting will lead to fraud, are unfounded”. Followed by a short “obyasnyalki” about the vote by mail of a few paragraphs, and then a more detailed analysis of the recent statements by trump in a series of tweets.
Why Twitter reacted just now? The company says that none of the provocative tweets trump the rules of the platform are not violated. However tweet about the vote via the email landed in the border area of the information misleading. And the company considered this so fundamental that I decided to fix it. 11 may, Twitter unveiled a new approach to the verification of the facts, but until this week he was only incorrect tweets about Covid-19. (Tweets that the company deems dangerous, are removed. It is noteworthy that recently, Twitter has removed the posts of the presidents of Brazil and Venezuela with the promotion of quack pseudo-medicine).
As has explained a press-the Secretary “Twitter”, mark the message of the trump of voting by mail — the first step of a new policy for the protection of “civil ethics”. To correct false information about voting or the national census. In a specific tweet trump was clearly dezinformatsia if California sends out bulletins “all in a row”. In fact, newsletters are sent only to registered voters.
We have to give Twitter credit for the courage and concern for the public good. It is not easy to butt heads with the most powerful man in the world, especially when he is an active user of your platform and spends a lot of his free time on petty slander. But the execution of the idea leaves much to be desired. After years of debate about whether to note about the statements from the people’s representatives and how the social network can’t develop a consistent approach.
Fact-checking requires subtle judgments about what is true, as it should speak and to whom you can trust. It’s not easy, even in areas such as science and medicine where there are reputable authorities, common standards and solid knowledge. Politics — I think it is impossible. On the shoulders of the team Moments went a Herculean task. By words a press-the Secretary of Twitter, it professionals, whose task is to build a social media posts into a single narrative.
This no doubt, but that does not make them arbiters in matters of truth. Take, for example, the section “What you need to know about voting by mail”. “Although trump singled out California, vote by mail used in several other States, including Oregon, Utah and Nebraska”. Actually, that statement in its own way too confusing. First, postal voting in one form or another is permitted in all 50 States. Secondly, Oregon, and Utah — two of the five States that have fallen for the General election by mail. Before the pandemic California was on her way to becoming the sixth in this list. But not Nebraska. And since most users at this stop continue to click, they will safely conclude that CA is going to implement a system that is already used in Nebraska.
It is noteworthy that even after several years of preparation for such a significant attempt to get trump to clean water, “Twitter” did not bother to check their own facts. (On Wednesday, the company made the necessary amendments).
Perhaps that is why the company relies on independent experts. Social networking platforms — not just “Twitter” and “Facebook” with “YouTube” — I like to hide behind the opinion of third-party “verifier”. Twitter checks the facts in a stylized form on the basis of other people’s tweets — because of the format in 280 characters about the reliability of the links, readers can only guess. Some of the cited sources themselves cite other articles and studies, where the topic is covered fully.
Events Tuesday highlight the shortcomings of this approach. So, as a reputable source is Chris Cillizza (Chris Cillizza) from the “si-EN-EN” (CNN), the infamous increased attention to inter-party squabbles. Below is quoted a tweet by journalist Jennifer Bendery (Jennifer Bendery) of openly liberal publication, the Huffington post (The Huffington Post). Her source is? The Governor of Oregon Kate brown (Kate Brown), a Democrat, responded: “Yes, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. Maybe so, but the mere fact that another politician, trump does not agree, does not prove him wrong. President so and so would accuse Twitter of being biased — but this kind of “experts” merely facilitate his task.
Disputes about fact-checking in social networks usually boil around tricky, and by its philosophical questions like freedom of speech and control the Internet. But the problem with freelancers where prosaicness: sometimes third-party “verifier” does no better than politicians, which debunk, and also lie as the gray gelding. “Facebook” in 2016 mark posts that organizations like Politifact and Factcheck.org considered deceptive (But the politicians, including trump, these rules do not apply — “even if their claims have been denied in other places”). Happen absurdity. Earlier this month, “Facebook” mark is against trump’s “partially false” on the grounds that it challenged Politifact — “trump threw a lifeline to wall street but not Main street”. Given that it’s a metaphor, and quite muddy, to judge the veracity of this judgment is simply impossible. However, the Director Politifact Aaron Sharockman (Aaron Sharockman) reported Steven levy (Steven Levy) from Wired: “I really like our mark. I think we did everything right”.
Even the most well known “verifier”, and they sometimes sit in a puddle. In 2018 Glenn Kessler (Glenn Kessler) from the Washington post (The Washington Post) gave Bernie Sanders (Bernie Sanders) three Pinocchio’s (on a four-point scale) for ads studies, where it was argued that the system of universal public health insurance will reduce overall health spending by 2 trillion dollars. The author complained to him that the Democrats overlooked that public expenditure will grow, believing that this is an important point. But the figure of 2 trillion dollars taken straight from his article. So the objective judgment of the Sanders correctly. Last summer, after the first Democratic debate, Kessler and his team challenged the assertion of Sanders that “three of the richest Americans richer half of the country.” Taking into account debts, they said, it would appear that the poorest half of Americans do negative income. Somehow, the statement from Sanders that moved into the category of lies.
I do not blanch Sanders. The fact is that to determine the truth in politics is hard because its essence is to convince others to agree with your interpretation of reality. Professional “verifier” pretend that, but in fact are as much a part of the process. And this is precisely what social networks want to avoid.
So while the accomplishments of Twitter leaves much to be desired. A few hours after the debut fact-checking trump, as expected, made accusations that Twitter is “intervene in the presidential election of 2020” and “stifles free speech”. The next morning he continued his ranting: “the Republicans believe that social networks are jamming the voice of the conservatives. We do not allow and will strictly regulate them, until the closing”.
The irony no need to explain: trump accuses Twitter of censorship — in the “Twitter”. Suffice it to say that well-intentioned efforts of the platform may be a compromise that nobody was fine. Trump to part with your horn is not going, the cries of discrimination conservatives have got a new supply, as trump’s critics are sure that “Twitter” was limited to half-measures.
But let’s still not going to write off Twitter accounts. Trump may have continued his tirade about vote by mail, tvitov the next day that it would be “chaos and fraud,” but, at least, outright lies about the California ballot to not repeat became. The President though, and loves the pathos, but it is fragile. His morning swearing he proved that he can’t stand when it corrected. Maybe the risk to part with the little blue tick will make him and other politicians to carefully think about whether or not to spread blatant misinformation. That’s a big “if” and a small victory but nevertheless a victory.