Twitter's Misinformation-Fighting Tool 'Birdwatch' Makes Mistakes (poynter.org) 83
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school and research organization, analyzed Twitter's 1,000-user pilot test of its Birdwatch fact-checking platform. Their conclusion?
It makes mistakes. On February 5, Twitter flagged a post from controversial YouTuber Tim Pool that said the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged. The platform noted that the claim was disputed and turned off engagement "due to a risk of violence."
But, on Birdwatch, the social media platform's experiment in crowdsourced fact-checking, users overwhelmingly said the tweet was not misleading, according to a Feb. 14 analysis of Twitter data. And most Birdwatch users indicated in the tool that they found these notes that supported debunked claims helpful and informative...
On Feb. 17, Twitter altered its algorithm and notes on the Pool tweet are no longer rated as helpful, although they are still listed below the post.
Before the change, less than a third of the "helpful" notes contained a source link that wasn't just another tweet, Poynter notes (though after the change, that number rose to 75%). "It's a timely illustration of one of the problems facing the Birdwatch model: Can an algorithm fed by a seemingly random group of people ever accurately 'rate' the truth?"
PolitiFact's editor-in-chief suggested better training, incentives, and the use of professional fact-checkers. But even then, they still told Poynter "I'm pretty dubious of tech companies who believe their users will moderate content for free for them. Most users don't see it as their job to help the platforms run their own businesses."
It makes mistakes. On February 5, Twitter flagged a post from controversial YouTuber Tim Pool that said the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged. The platform noted that the claim was disputed and turned off engagement "due to a risk of violence."
But, on Birdwatch, the social media platform's experiment in crowdsourced fact-checking, users overwhelmingly said the tweet was not misleading, according to a Feb. 14 analysis of Twitter data. And most Birdwatch users indicated in the tool that they found these notes that supported debunked claims helpful and informative...
On Feb. 17, Twitter altered its algorithm and notes on the Pool tweet are no longer rated as helpful, although they are still listed below the post.
Before the change, less than a third of the "helpful" notes contained a source link that wasn't just another tweet, Poynter notes (though after the change, that number rose to 75%). "It's a timely illustration of one of the problems facing the Birdwatch model: Can an algorithm fed by a seemingly random group of people ever accurately 'rate' the truth?"
PolitiFact's editor-in-chief suggested better training, incentives, and the use of professional fact-checkers. But even then, they still told Poynter "I'm pretty dubious of tech companies who believe their users will moderate content for free for them. Most users don't see it as their job to help the platforms run their own businesses."
Actually... (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
There are probably those people, but that person is not tim pool. Ive had many of his stories sent to me and half the time he doesnt even read the article that starts his rants. He uses their headlines to just veer off into whatever right wing inflammatory discussion topic he wishes to talk about that will get clicks on his youtube channel for money
I.e. most recently was how biden is all bad and evil because he was going to make insulin more expensive. However the article that started his entire 20min segme
Re: Actually... (Score:2)
I looked into this for over and hour yesterday Thank Christ you didn't say "I do my own research", because then you'd have sounded illiterate.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the misinformation contained in the tweet:
Oops, that's a quote from the actual linked article [time.com], which the tweet just summarized completely accurately...
Missing the Poynt (Score:5, Insightful)
Poynter didn't find that Birdwatch makes mistakes. They found that they disagree... With Pool's entirely reasonable characterisation of the Time article.
Watch Birdwatch get scrapped for not agreeing with the media gatekeepers.
Re:Missing the Poynt (Score:4, Informative)
Pool's entirely reasonable characterisation of the Time article.
Was this the article that describes a well funded and organized "cabal" (the word from the article) of elite democrats from disparate fields to "fortify" the election to achieve "the proper result" since, at the time, Trump was holding steady in the polls?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans does not mean bi-partisan as both groups are part of the establishment / swamp / deep state/ cabal / etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
After that there were 60+ court cases that he lost
And who is supposed to remove lies like this from the Internet? Who is banning you for spreading these falsehoods? Being denied a hearing is not the same as having a court tell you that you are wrong.
but it was definitely an attempted steal.
This is a lie on a much bigger level than anything any Trump supporter has alleged in public. And yet no one ever gets fired, cancelled or deplatformed for spreading such lies.
Re: (Score:2)
is right here. https://time.com/5936036/secre... [time.com]
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link.
I can see why those involved in 'red-teaming' the election, and developing the strategies they used to minimise the predicted confrontation and violence, wanted the gist of their work made public. In light of this 'summary' the events that occurred, or more pointedly didn't occur, make much more sense to me now.
The USA owes Mike Podhorzer (specifically, but among others) a huge debt of gratitude, and I for one would like to shake him by the hand.
Re: (Score:3)
The mistake was crowd sourcing it. They should have known that the wisdom of crowds is... Questionable. And also prone to being swamped by people trying to make a point, rather than evaluating the content.
Re: Missing the Poynt (Score:2)
They cannot control the narrative if everyday people can respond. They can probably salvage their propaganda machine if they just limit the approves to âoetrustedâ partners.
A bald faced lie is not reasonable. (Score:2, Insightful)
"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."
https://time.com/5936036/secre... [time.com]
The Time story is about how a very large number of people from multiple interest groups and political persuasions came together to protect the integrity of the election against a force that wanted to destroy it, whi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Missing the Poynt (Score:2)
Bridwatch is just garbage-in garbage-out. It just so happens the majority of contributors agrees with what your viewpoint here. It doesn't reflect whether it is in fact true.
And to you other point, removing the media gatekeepers doesn't mean it's replaces with a better system. In fact it being replaced with a much worse system as we have seen in the past decade or so.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Misinformation-Fighting Tool"? (Score:2)
Perhaps it should have been called a "Fighting Misinformation-Tool".
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one legal misinformation tool, the courts, prove it in court. That is the standard, that has always been the standard until now. Now it is WESAYSO Corporation rule, a corporations claims it is misinformation, it is now misinformation backed by corrupt governments. The individual has ZERO right to the truth, they can not speak it, they can not hear it, they can not see it. In the current corrupt status, only corporations can claim the truth, individuals can not.
Courts as a bastion of truth, fo
Source is people. (Score:2)
"Birdwatch" is predicated on people being able to spot misinformation. When enough people report information as disinformation or vice versa then it starts doing the wrong thing. The tool only did what it was designed to do which was based on a flawed premise. Without any ground truth to base judgements on, it's impossible for such a tool to overcome bad actors and people who does not base judgements on ground truths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Source is people. (Score:2)
Re: Source is people. (Score:2)
Yep, it can only support biases, each chamber (Score:2)
Yep, when you ask Twitter users to mark whether a Tweet or true or not, all you're going to get is a vote on whether they agree with whatever position they think it supports. That is, it can only reinforce the echo chamber.
Today on Slashdot:
Somebody points out a fact X that is stated TWICE in the linked article.
Somebody says "nope, the article says the opposite".
Of course the person who clearly didn't read the article is modded +5 informative.
Somebody says "state Y sucks for foo". They should be more like
Re: (Score:2)
When 4chan catches on to this, I can see the makings of another Tay [wikipedia.org].
It looks like they're trying to create (Score:4, Insightful)
This could be interesting (Score:2)
How much does anyone wanna bet that all the "mistakes" will begin to tend in the same direction someday?
Discussion not allowed (Score:2, Insightful)
So here we are, now implementing magical algorithms to make sure no one posts anything that might not agree with our Big Tech Overlords. No need for debate or discussion or counter claims. God forbid there should be any nuance.
I always thought total censorship and thought control would come from the government a la Orwell. Instead we have something in place that may prove far worse: a handful of super wealthy who are not responsible in any way to any one, unelected, self-appointed, unstoppable. They sol
Re: Discussion not allowed (Score:2)
>They solely determine what we are allowed to say online now. There is only ever one opinion, it is theirs, it is always correct and all other voices are shut down for simply having a different view of life.
This is exactly how r/the_donald and r/conservative worked/works on Reddit reflecting how media on the right has been behaving.
As with election rigging, this line of attack is projection through and through.
Crowdsourcing facts, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Crowdsourcing facts, really? (Score:5, Funny)
> believes a lie like the 2020 US election was stolen
It wasn't stolen - it was fortified by an elite cabal to achieve the proper result.
Jeez, nobody reads TFA anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or when 50% of the population believes a lie like Biden got more votes than Obama.
Yeah, because that could only happen if more people voted in this election so the total numbers would be higher. The fact that 30 million more people voted in this election than either of Obama's elections probably had no influence on the numbers. /sarcasm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The combination of the pandemic convincing many states to finally allow anyone to use a mail-in ballot, a voting population that was 10 million people greater than just four years ago, and extreme media coverage all
Re: (Score:1)
convincing many states to finally allow anyone to use a mail-in ballot,
And consequently, Republicans in 33 states are in the process of passing laws to restrict mail-in ballots [nbcnews.com] to people on their death bed. In Georgia, the legislature is working to change voting regulations to prevent early voting on Sundays [seattletimes.com], traditional days when the black churches do a get out the vote campaign. You know, because people have "lost faith" in the electoral process.
And by "lost faith" in the electoral process, Republicans
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The New Knowledge falsification of their own advertising activity via a Russian PR company was used by them as proof Russia was interfering - to sell their social media monitoring product to the feds.
That was yet another complete load of bullshit that was on the news every 15 minutes because it supported the bullshit narrative of the modern cold war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Everyone is an idiot (Score:2)
>the election rules were modified to favor access over authentication
It's actually the other way around. Election rules are actively being introduced on the state level to favour authentication over access and this has been the trend for the past decades.
Bird watch was spot on. (Score:2, Informative)
How about we stop the misinformation activity.. (Score:1, Flamebait)
.. of governments, organisations, businesses and other 'not individuals' and leave individuals alone?
Who here would think that Twitter or anyone else would have blocked the Assange is a rapist misinformation that was being spread by the above?
No - what we have going on here is going to be used as a tool of suppressing information that doesn't fit into the narrative of the misinformed majority.
The actual thing is, Tim was right. (Score:4, Informative)
Poynter is pissed that they got overruled.
Birdwatch did what it was supposed to do. Went for NPOV.
Whereas Poynter was pushing a partisan line.
So now Poynter is going to attack Birdwatch for threatening their hegemony on "facts".
Lets define our terms (Score:1, Flamebait)
Fact checkers do make mistakes, often knowingly and for partisan reasons, but the one quoted is the opposite example - it working as intended. Tim Pool (and many others!) correctly pointed out that Left was gloating about doing immoral and arguably illegal things in that Time Magazine article. Even if you agree with the necessity of the outcome, tossing out Trump, the end does not justify the means! More
maybe it makes mistakes, but this wasn't it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:maybe it makes mistakes, but this wasn't it (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think this even matters at this point. Time magazine just came out said that a cabal of elites rigged the election I'm sorry they said they didn't rig the election they "fortified" it...
The relevant passage from the Time's article is this:
a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.
Tim has also re-tweeted the Poynter article with his criticism of it in this tweet [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Attribution can be used as an appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] as a means to mislead, making it a cloak of legitimacy to attempt to hide a factual error.
Re: (Score:2)
Attribution can be used as an appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] as a means to mislead, making it a cloak of legitimacy to attempt to hide a factual error.
And a circle can be a gold ring or a pile of shit.
The algorithm (Score:2)
''Can an algorithm fed by a seemingly random group of people ever accurately 'rate' the truth?"''
It depends on a few things. First off, only if there is a specific set of guidelines and your raters are paid and qualified to apply ratings. The rating staff must have incentive to appropriately apply the guidelines for their decisions, they must be educated and their quality managed by the organization. And, your engineers are constantly developing the algorithm to provide the highest quality results. It's mu
Occums razor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As always, why do people always skip the easiest simplest option of turning twitter off.
I prefer an easier simpler option. Never turn it on.
Re: (Score:2)
A problematic article (Score:2, Insightful)
I actually read the article in Time, most of it anyway, last week. I can guarantee I'm ahead of 90% of the blowhards commenting here on Slashdot, where we don't even get a link to the article...
The article did note, within the first couple paragraphs, that it could be problematic. The idea of a group of self-described liberals holding meetings for months around the election, hiring lawyers (in response to the Blitzkrieg of Republican lawsuits) and organizing to boost the turnout? That's readymade conspiracy
My googlemap location reviews. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Politifact just needs to shut up now (Score:1)
For example [thefederalist.com], Harris blatantly lied about the vaccine efforts that they inherited and Politifact won't call her onto the mat like they did Trump and Pence.
This is very serious
Re: (Score:1)
So IOW (Score:2)
The Birdwatcher can't differentiate between a penguin and a dodo.
Political Censorship (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)