Twitter Will Warn You If You 'Like' Misleading Tweets (engadget.com) 175
Earlier this year, Twitter started flagging disputed and potentially misleading tweets. Now, it's expanding the feature so that you'll also get a warning if you attempt to "like" a disputed tweet. Engadget reports: Tapping the heart button on a post that's been labeled as misleading will trigger a prompt with a "Find out more" button to pop up. App experimental feature researcher Jane Manchun Wong discovered the expanded function earlier this month. The tweets she tested, which were related to the elections, showed a warning that says "Official sources may not have called the race when this was tweeted."
A week after election day, Twitter revealed that it labeled 300,000 tweets as misleading between October 27th and November 11th. Out of all those, 456 were blocked from being retweeted or liked and were hidden behind a warning before they could even be viewed. The company says its efforts have led to a 29 percent decrease in quoted tweets containing misleading information. In other Twitter news, the company said today that it would relaunch its verification process early next year along with brand-new guidelines for users seeking out that small, blue badge.
A week after election day, Twitter revealed that it labeled 300,000 tweets as misleading between October 27th and November 11th. Out of all those, 456 were blocked from being retweeted or liked and were hidden behind a warning before they could even be viewed. The company says its efforts have led to a 29 percent decrease in quoted tweets containing misleading information. In other Twitter news, the company said today that it would relaunch its verification process early next year along with brand-new guidelines for users seeking out that small, blue badge.
I never like tweets (Score:2)
It's a useless feature and a useless metric, that only serves as a "instant gratification" tool to make people addicted to attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Until you get millions of Likes and then it's the best thing in the world!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liking a bad tweet, this warning is a "are you sure you want to label yourself as an idiot?" flag, nothing more.
Re: I never like tweets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff... (Score:4, Informative)
Trump's comments are controversial, because these lack evidence.
To refer to Biden as President-Elect is due to the predictions and the math behind the votes, which makes him very likely the next president and these votes are real and are the evidence.
It's then a tradition to call the most likely next president the "President-Elect" even before the official certification, and note that you don't call him the "President-Certified", which you could do once the certification has finished. Also for the same reason was Donald Trump called "President-Elect" before the vote count was officially certified.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All accused deserve a defence. But if you want to skip justice and go straight to the execution then you'll find that you have more in common with Trump than you thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrongthinkers deserve to go to gulags. Alongside those that dare to defend them.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that sarcasm, or are you another Democrat making a list of people to remove from society?
Seriously, it's hard to tell in this day and age, when sitting members of Congress are talking about making lists of undesirable (ie, people that don't agree with their stupidity).
Re:Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
The court of public opinion and debate is not a court of law, although if you insist it should be, the trial has been running for 4 years and every side has had plenty of opportunity to review the evidence and pass a reasonably informed judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a "find out more" button front and center with these warnings that brings up plenty of material illustrating why the information is disputed or misleading, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no court here. I was merely appealing to the better judgement of the previous poster.
But to play along with your notion, who exactly do you think is the jury in this court of public opinion, who the prosecutor, who the defendant and who the judge? I'm asking, because I'm pretty sure I saw Trump take on every role at some point. Was there even somebody else in this court of opinion other than him??
Re: (Score:2)
More in common with the way Democrats portray Trump, not with Trump himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that is because none of the accusations against him have borne out to be true?
Re: Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Tradition is to wait for one to concede
No, the tradition is to concede, not to make others wait for it.
But what goes around, comes around. Trump's been breaking traditions from the start. If anything should Trump be removed as early as Christmas to make it a nicer holiday.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you distorting the facts? In 2016, Democrats were lobbying the electoral college to not vote for Trump. Pelosi announced she'd use the 25th to overturn the election results. Hillary did not concede and filed lawsuits. For the first time since 1896, multiple faithless electors voted against the pledged qualified vice presidential candidate. The House set up a special council to investigate alleged election fraud. Breaking traditions from the start? Please look in the mirror.
As you said: what goes aro
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you distorting the facts?
Why are you getting them wrong?
One concedes a presidency, and so by your interpretation was Hillary Clinton the president. What do you think people mean when they talk about conceding? Do you think this is about the floor, a podium or perhaps a microphone that's being concede here?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have anything to document your claims?
I try to pay attention to such things, and I dont recall any of those.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't remember ANY of those? Seriously? Joe Biden, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why should she? She cannot concede a presidency when she was never the president. You cannot concede was isn't yours to concede.
Frankly, you have the wrong idea what it means to concede. It's about the presidency, it's the highest office there is. A country does not serve its president, but a president serves its country. It is an honour and this honour has been shared among presidents and one way of showing respect for it is to concede the presidency to the next elected president, because above it all
Re: (Score:2)
No one has ever "conceded" the Presidency. Politicians concede that they lost an election all the time. . .when it is apparent they lost.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tradition is to wait for one to concede
No, the tradition is to concede, not to make others wait for it.
[Laughs in Al Gore, Jr.]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may perhaps be referring to the tightness of the "race", only you will really know what conditions you're talking about, but if so these are not as tight as some perceive it. It's easy to confuse the "thriller" that Trump is creating with his behaviour, and the "thriller" that is a tight race. There was no tight race, only a slow process due to the votes by mail. The result is very much on Biden's side, and it is Trump's behaviour that has over-shadowed much of the election. If this had been a normal el
Re: (Score:2)
Did Al Gore concede the night of the election?
How about Al Franken?
Stacy Abrams?
Noticed a pattern yet?
Re: (Score:2)
You know that's not true. People don't just talk about Trump. They talk about themselves, how happy they are he is gone or about what they believe he will do for them. It's hardly ever about the man himself. And people will talk and fight about it all for a while and beyond January.
What will happen on Christmas though is that people will purposely oppress all this and choose silence or entirely different topics all together. That's not great either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
This was despite "the predictions and the math", which favored Bush. The media's behavior in 2000 was the exact opposite of what it is today, despite the allegations being far more serious and widespread. The only apparent determinant for the behavioral 180 is that it is now a Republican contesting the results. This is not a great surprise given how deeply tied the press is to the DNC.
In 2016, Hillary conceded, meaning that Trump was essentially unopposed and thus President-elect by default. Without a concession, there is no President-Elect until the electors meet.
The "the math behind the votes" ? ? ? ? ? ? (Score:2)
The "the math behind the votes" says that the votes were statically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
But there aren't any are there?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, quick example. Not the best but the first one I saw.
https://twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid/status/1329817104204304389
Retweeted by Trump.
Flagged as "This claim about election fraud is disputed"
The tweet makes a claim about the number who believe that it was rigged/fraudulent and who have lost confidence in "the system". Now, it's not sourced, but it seems a reasonable approximate number based on some polls that have been released (and regardless, that figure is not what's being flagged)
It states the opi
Re:Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
The tweet in question:
"We’ve lost confidence in the system that elects our leaders. 79 million Americans believe election was rigged, the results fraudulent. We need an in-person-only-paper ballot re-vote, especially in the States where flagrant irregularities have occurred. No accuracy, no democracy!"
I get the impression all the 7 separate claims in bold are questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is flagged as "Misleading"
Depends on your definitions.
If by "results fraudulent" you mean that was at least one problematic vote, i.e. one wrongly counted or should not have been counted or should-have but was-not counter, or any of the other many possible issues then Yes the election results WERE fraudulent. Nobody can seriously claim that there were zero problematic ballots when recounts never agree. Sure the number of electoral votes from the state may not change, but ANY problematic ballot
Re: (Score:2)
Were there any problematic votes back in 2016?
By your logic, Trump's win was fraudulent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many people have lost confidence. There are multiple polls out that indicate that. I don't even think it's a controversial claim that there has been a loss in confidence in the system that elects the leaders lately.
That loss of confidence may or may not be well founded. That's beside the point of the tweet.
The "believe election was rigged, the results fraudulent" phrasing was a package, attached to the "79 million Americans" part. It's odd that you highlighted one part but not the other. Once again, thou
Re: (Score:2)
79 million is a specific number with no source or backup to the claim. The statement is clearly worded to convince others by way of peer pressure. The bar for what is or is not misleading information is different depending on the person tweeting. A president is going to be held to a higher standard than Jeff from Costco due to the weight people place on his words and the outsized influence compared to other people. No poll shows that 79 million people think the results were fraudulent, although you fell int
Re:Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rasmussen had 47% of Americans believing "Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win".
Depending on how widely you apply that, that's ~72m based on turnout (of ~153m) to ~112m based on eligible voters (~240m according to CNBC).
A Reuters/Ipsos poll had 45% not thinking that the election was "legitimate and accurate" so numbers of ~68m to ~108m.
The same poll had the number of ppl thinking there definitely was "illegal voting or election rigging" at 28% so ~42m to 67m.
So the number are large an real, and while the 79m number specifically is unsourced (remember, it's a tweet - limited space) it is certainly in the "reasonable" range.
The tweet was from an actor, not from Trump. Trump merely retweeted it. The flag was attached to the actor's tweet.
So the standard apparently now is "if an important person somehow is involved and it kinda feels like it may be alluding to or implying something false, flag it"? I look forward to that standard being applied across the board. I doubt it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of polls are intentionally misleading. Republicans are intentionally under sampled, or carefully sampled to overrepresent those likely to break ranks. They take samples too small to reflect anything, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have lost confidence
Because many people watch Fox & Friends, a right-wing propaganda machinery that has been parroted by Trump throughout his presidency. Trump and the QAnon nutjob conspiracists claim there is a "shadow government". Well, in a way they are right about this one. Sean Hannity is the shadow president. Trump watches Fox and Friends every day and has allowed the nonsense and conspiracies pouring out of that show guide his presidency since day one.
And one of the biggest arguments of that show since before the el
Re: (Score:2)
The distrust of electoral process in the US is far older, and more bipartisan than just "fox". There's plenty of distrust amongst stymied Sanders supporters, for example, and for the last four or five years the media has been relentlessly undermining confidence in elections in the other direction.
On a personal note, I don't have a lot of trust in the way (federal) elections are managed in the US either, but more from a procedural point of view with regard to fragmentation and the competency of local author
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even watched Fox&Friends? They were extremely hostile towards Trumnp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I over did that. I just mean the tweet is hardly what I'd call factual. Twitter is pushing it like you say. I assume their threshold for what counts as a flag-able disputed fact varies with the poster's notoriety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the point. You make rules so that everyone is in violation. Then those who enforce rules become those who decide what rules are, rather than those that made the rules.
This is a staple of every dictatorship on the planet in regard to their rules. Silicon Valley corporations are simply learning from their betters in China.
Re: Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff.. (Score:2)
... as opposed to "democratic corporations"?
How do those work?
Re: Tweets are fine, but this "misleading" stuff.. (Score:2)
Hit a nerve, did I?
What, how dare you call corporations mini-dictatorships? Oof, you really owned the libs with that one. Ow, it stings, please stop, no more. You really thought that one through huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, quick example. Not the best but the first one I saw.
https://twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid/status/1329817104204304389
Retweeted by Trump. Flagged as "This claim about election fraud is disputed"
I agree, that's not a very good example for your claim.
The intent of that tweet is clearly to convince people that the election was rigged. Yes, it skirts the edge by not saying it in so many words, but instead by saying that many people believe it to be so, but the intention to convince is still there and still very clear. Particularly the last four words veer well over the line by implying that the vote wasn't accurate. The tweet explores the boundaries of what Twitter will flag, attempting to disinform
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you had a host of Democrats claiming that Trump was not a legitimate President due to the Russia hoax, and they continue to push that narrative.
It's not that I have an issue with there "misleading" tag. It is obvious bias with which they apply it.
Re: (Score:2)
Neat experiment: Tweet something about Trump refusing to acknowledge the election results. Get tagged. Tweet something about Stacey Abrams refusing to acknowledge the election results. Get ignored.
Twitter users need this bad! (Score:3)
Just to self absorbed to see that real life is better than anything social media has to offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope! You coined a new word, well definition anyway. Steep = stupid + deep, as in deeply stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Positive feedback loops (Score:3, Insightful)
Also at play is the following dynamic: many of these organizations are staffed by younger journalists or people who move between major newspapers and media and fact checkers. And it's a good rule of thumb (as confirmed by @jack himself), that journalists use Twitter as an information source.
So you have positive feedback reinforcing that in-group's biases by effectively casting it as independently verified truth when it is often a game of telephone. Whether that hurts or helps your guy get into office or stay in office isn't the problem so much as the fact that the public will be half blind while being told it has perfect vision.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a good rule of thumb (as confirmed by @jack himself), that journalists use Twitter as an information source.
They might call it that, but I'm pretty sure anything with a SNR of less than one is considered a noise source. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Something with an SNR rather close to zero is a noise source. With SNR closer to one, you just need to be able to exploit the signal's structure to recover at least part of the original message. The Shannon-Hartley theorem says that the capacity of a channel, in bits per second, approaches the bandwidth, in Hertz, as the SNR approaches one (from the same direction, either from above or from below).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you have positive feedback reinforcing that in-group's biases by effectively casting it as independently verified truth when it is often a game of telephone. Whether that hurts or helps your guy get into office or stay in office isn't the problem so much as the fact that the public will be half blind while being told it has perfect vision.
I'm seeing "postive feedback reinforcement" from third-party organizations on both sides of the political spectrum. For every left-wing snowflake journalist there is a right wing redneck equivilant. Both extremes are vehemently opposed to any idea, program or opportunity championed by the other, are immune to critical thinking grounded in fact, and have incestous relationships with the organizations they most closely embrace as "independant and truthful" sources of information.
Both have legions of true bel
Re:Positive feedback loops (Score:4, Insightful)
You can say this, but I have yet to see a tweet flagged/censored that I felt Twitter made a mistake on. The only tweets I've seen affected are ones that were some combination of divisive false propaganda or inciting violence/hate.
Maybe in the future it will be abused. Maybe it will even be like you said: not overt and maybe not on purpose, but purely via systemic unmitigated bias. It seems likely that journalists and other groups will raise big warning flags if this were the case. It is after all pretty easy to detect when a tweet is flagged, and there are plenty of avenues to get the word out that aren't Twitter.
Normally I am very much anti-censorship, but this is a giant problem and I don't see any other way around it. So long as they clearly define the rules and are consistent in applying them, I think it's better than just doing nothing. Social networks have a very clear and harmful multiplying effect on crackpot stuff. Something has to be done about it, and teaching everyone critical thinking ain't it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a really easy fix for this: just don't allow fact checkers to check stories about themselves.
It may still not be absolutely perfect but here perfect is very much the enemy of good. When you reject all verification and factual information by instinctively distrusting all sources of information you get the post-truth age, which hopefully we are moving out of now.
better not post about my huuge penis (Score:2)
that might be flagged as misleading - but probably flagged as other things too
Just like Reddit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Reddit doesn't ban for upvoting posts (Score:5, Informative)
Now, you *will* get banned like crazy from sub-reddits for posting in other subs.
What was happening is that a bunch of yahoos from the right wing forums were crap flooding the BLM forums. So much so their mods couldn't keep up. So they just started banning people that post in certain right wing forums. Post to a right wing forum and get banned.
I've been banned from a few left wing forums because I'll sometimes post in the right wing ones (it's a waste of time, BTW, the mods on the right wing forums are so strict they're echo chambers).
The right wing forums on reddit have collapsed into a few super well moderated forums because if they're not super well moderated the racists and white supremecists show up and Reddit _will_ ban those (and eventually your entire sub if you don't get them under control). I'm talking the folks who casually use the N* word. A side effect to this is that all the right wingers hang on on 1 or 2 forums and when they go on a raid they can crush just about any sub-reddit they want unless Reddit itself steps in.
Just warn me that I stumbled onto twitter. (Score:2)
False security (Score:2)
Re:False security (Score:4, Interesting)
Misleading? That's what they want you to think! (Score:2)
Re:Misleading? That's what they want you to think! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not the people already drinking the Kool-Aid this is for, it's to prevent new people from joining them.
Re: (Score:2)
In my limited experience, it feels like it's having an opposite Streisand-like effect. I imagine it works if they keep doing it but to abuse your analogy, I know of at least a handful of people who had their first sip specifically because they were told not to and found it rather tasty.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if some dumbass wants to believe the world is flat? Twitter doesn't need to step in and point out what the rest of the world already knows. Just let the idiot be an idiot until they build themselves a rocket and find out the hard way.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that idiots voting like idiots hurts me. It turns out idiots with guns shooting people hurts me. It turns out idiots donating all the free cash to cult leaders then forcing me to watch them starve or donate food hurts me. So I care.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why should Twitter have any role in shaping beliefs? Why should Twitter be the one to arbitrate fact? Why should Twitter take any side in a disagreement between users when people are perfectly capable of arguing with each other without help?
Who cares if some dumbass wants to believe the world is flat? Twitter doesn't need to step in and point out what the rest of the world already knows. Just let the idiot be an idiot until they build themselves a rocket and find out the hard way.
Yep, we used to call that freedom. Oh well. it was nice while it lasted.
"Consider Your Social Credit Score" (Score:3, Informative)
How soon before the popup warns:
"Consider your social credit score before proceeding.
Are you sure you want to click 'like'?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Never. Your Silicon Valley Submission Scale on the other hand will be adjusted on the background, affecting visibility of all your actions to others.
Seriously, that's one thing that SV corporations have been learning. They don't have the popular backing to go full CCP enforcement. It has to be done slowly, with plausible deniability.
While the end goal is the same, the methods have to be different to adjust for different cultures in much of the the Western cultures resist thought suppression much harder than
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently SV corporate heads having admitted to doing these things, in public. And promising that they will incrementally increase suppression of wrong opinions. That's correct.
But talking about them saying that. That's "spouting endless inane drivel and making up stupid conspiracy theories and then talk about them like they are fact". And that is "Trump's legacy".
You can't make this shit up. TDS sufferers like these would be hilarious if they weren't this frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
How soon before the popup warns:
"Consider your social credit score before proceeding.
Are you sure you want to click 'like'?"
That's pretty much how slashdot works with karma, as a logged in user your posts start with +1, but if if you've earned enough karma you default +2, also the chance of getting modpoints and how many.
Twitter is NOT my mama! (Score:2)
What'll they do if I love misleading tweets? (Score:2)
Twitter must run afoul of COPPA quite a bit... (Score:2)
Because clearly they believe their users are children.
They wouldn't need stupid "features" like this if they believed their service was being used by functioning adults.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the world of thought control (Score:2)
Welcome to the world of thought control. Are you sanguine about corporations and consortia of corporations controlling your thoughts but panicked about the government doing this? Doesn't the act make them the de facto government you are afraid of? Which is worse, corporate thought control by Google/Facebook/Twitter or by government thought control? Do you think you have a "none of the above" choice? This is a situation that requires a great deal of careful thought, because "it is possible so there is no way
George Orwell says "hi" (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter doesn't like someone's opinion? Label it "misleading" - lots of people will believe it, and devalue the tweet.
Who is Twitter, to steer the beliefs of the masses? Why should we tolerate them exercising subtle-but-real Orwellian power? The same for Facebook, or any other service that enforces "right-think".
Twitter claims to be a public platform, specifically: "We advocate for free expression and protecting the health of the public conversation around the world." If that's what they claim, then they should be required to live up to it. Free expression != censorship, no matter how subtle.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolls suck, but they have the same right to free expression that som
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. People don't have to listen to people whose views they dislike. Essentially all social media platforms have the concept of following or subscribing: you get to choose who you want to hear from. Many also have the opposite - for example, on Reddit you can read the general feed, but suppress subreddits that you find annoying.
Second, you mention trolls, but trolls can easily be controlled by a decent moderation system. Slashdot is
Re:George Orwell says "hi" (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is Twitter, to steer the beliefs of the masses?
Who is Twitter that you value them a completely public space and decide that you have the right to force a private company to have to appear to support a narrative you don't like?
Freedom of Speech includes not having to support speech you don't like in your own house. You don't like it, build another house next door.
Conservatives ... (Score:2)
By "misleading" they mean conservative (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just say it? Everybody knows it.
Right now a complete BS story about Parler being hacked is going around. Twitter is fine with that story.
But no matter how well verified a story may be, if it does not conform to the leftist agenda, it's automatically "misleading."
Re:Suicide (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)