This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter never actually say things are fake; they say things are baseless and without evidence. If you want to post things that are influential you simply need to back that claim up with something that people can verify from a trustworthy source - 'fake news' will still be posted because sometimes even a trusted source gets it wrong, but it'll happen far less often. That's the goal.

Suggesting that we should all adopt Nietzsche's perspectivist approach where "there are no facts, only interpretations" is entirely unhelpful. You can't run a functioning society if you have to accept literally every batshit mental theory as "well it might be right, we can't ever know for sure". If there is no evidence, you can say something is fake. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong.

Twitter is a platform for stating things as fact without evidence. 120 (or whatever it is now) character limit is not suitable for having cogent conversations.

As for posting without space to have a cogent conversation, sure I can accept that. The answer is to not post that thing on Twitter. It isn't to just have the conversation anyway and ignore the fact that you're not providing evidence behind what you're saying. Twitter's 'censorship' of their platform doesn't stop anyone posting on different platforms that allow longer posts.

We're talking within the scopes of twitter as a communicative platform. Wether or not other platforms exist and how much more or less censorship and tokens you get is irrelivant to the discussion on wether it is morally right for twitter to flag tweets it deems 'misinformation' Twitter as a platform has no register of what they can and cannot judge. Twitter does not replicate ANY evidence on what they call misinformation. Twitter does not even provide proof on what they call misinformation. Just the label at the bottom. Twitter also categorises criticism on mainstream 'facts' as the same 'misinformation'

How would you like HN if ITT everyone disagreed with twitter censorship and you would be labelled on every post ITT as 'misinformation'? would you think that constitutes as a usefull HN guideline?

What will they go by when there are multiple versions of stories based on who you ask?

Will they block all the stories where there are anonymous sources?

Will they block all opinion pieces?

And no, lack of evidence doesn't make things fake. Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. Even for things that may require evidence, evidence can always be found later or presented later. If Twitter had existed since the 60s, would it be right for them to block everything mentioning Higgs boson until evidence for it was found in 2012?

That's kind of the point I was making. Lack of evidence doesn't make something fake, but it doesn't make it true either. Twitter is pointing that out and telling people where things don't have evidence so they shouldn't automatically accept it as true (or fake). Where something is incredibly influential and could lead to violence I think Twitter should be wary about publishing it. People's safety is important, so while I don't think Twitter should block speech I do think putting a warning on it is reasonable.

If Twitter had existed since the 60s, would it be right for them to block everything mentioning Higgs boson until evidence for it was found in 2012?

Anyone with even the tiniest bit of science education talked about the Higgs Boson as a no more than a possibility and definitely not a fact until it was proved experimentally and the evidence was clear for anyone to see. If people had been saying it was definitely real then a skeptical warning that there wasn't any evidence to prove that might not have been a bad idea.

You're completely wrong on this one. Not only did physicists believe in the existence of Higgs boson, they built upon the premise that it existed for all those years.

Sometimes evidence is not always possible to present or just not practical. Also, there are various degrees of what kind of evidence is acceptable. The evidence required to publish a paper in a scientific journal is different from what is required to make a legal case or report in a magazine. So, with a premise of "requiring evidence", you can be very flexible in terms of what you allow and don't... which is what Twitter seems to be doing.

Trust is a massive optimization. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong, and provide recourse.

For example, I see plenty of people touting the idea that everyone should be nice to one another. This is becoming a meme in society. I see the shittiest people wishing others to be nice to one another. It's become a cognitive dissonance.

It is only matter of time till being "nice" becomes state mandated in a country (US) where if I want to be a piece of shit, I can be a piece of shit. A lot of people in the states seem to genuinely not understand this concept.

I genuinely suggest burning down twitter.

/s

> Officials in Michigan reported on Tuesday that citizens of Flint, a predominantly black city, were receiving calls telling them to vote Wednesday, and not on election day. The calls are now being investigated by the FBI.

That is misinformation, no ifs, no buts.

In the early 2000's Americans were lied into the Iraq war, with multiple newspapers practically begging [0] for war, and critics were the ones on the correct side of history. If that happened in 2021, would the critics be silenced, have warnings on all of their tweets, and be told that they're supporting conspiracy theories? Questioning the official narrative of power is becoming wrongthink.

Who's deciding what's wrong and right?

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

Have you been arguing with OP before? Or is this just how you address people in general? It doesn't set a very nice tone.

In this case, twitter. And it's fine to disagree with the fact checkers.

Example: The famous photo of Anderson Cooper standing in a ditch, pretending as if there was a catstrophic flood. (Really, the water was only a few inches deep.) Would Twitter flag that one?

It's a given they'd flag Trump a bunch. How about Joe Biden saying he would not ban fracking? Would Twitter flag that one?

Twitter is going to have a very hard time making anybody happy with this idea.

[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anderson-cooper-hurricane/

As for Twitter, there's no question of the evidence of this bias. The Twitter CEO previously just admitted to this: 'I fully admit our bias is more left-leaning' [0]

Looks like the cool kids want their echo-chambers back.

[0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all solidly neoliberal, so the mistake is understandable.