Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Twitter Social Networks The Internet

Twitter Will Hide Tweets That Share False Info During a Crisis (theverge.com) 160

Posted by BeauHD from the content-moderation dept.
On Thursday, Twitter announced a new policy for dealing with misinformation during a period of crisis, establishing new standards for gating or blocking the promotion of certain tweets if they are seen as spreading misinformation. The Verge reports: "Content moderation is more than just leaving up or taking down content," explained Yoel Roth, Twitter's head of safety and integrity, in a blog post detailing the new policy, "and we've expanded the range of actions we may take to ensure they're proportionate to the severity of the potential harm." The new policy puts particular scrutiny on false reporting of events, false allegations involving weapons or use of force, or broader misinformation regarding atrocities or international response.

Hoax tweets and other misinformation regularly go viral during emergencies, as users rush to share unverified information. The sheer speed of events makes it difficult to implement normal verification or fact-checking systems, creating a significant challenge for moderators. Under the new policy, tweets classified as misinformation will not necessarily be deleted or banned; instead, Twitter will add a warning label requiring users to click a button before the tweet can be displayed (similar to the existing labels for explicit imagery). The tweets will also be blocked from algorithmic promotion. The stronger standards are meant to be limited to specific events. Twitter will initially apply the policy to content concerning the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the company expects to apply the rules to all emerging crises going forward. For the purposes of the policy, crisis is defined as "situations in which there is a widespread threat to life, physical safety, health, or basic subsistence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Will Hide Tweets That Share False Info During a Crisis More

Twitter Will Hide Tweets That Share False Info During a Crisis

Comments Filter:

  • For reference (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2022 @09:05PM (#62551026)

    - Accurate mask efficacy was "misinformation"
    - As was vax efficacy
    - "riots" were "mostly peaceful protests"
    - Hunter's laptop was "russian" misinformation

    And that's just a few from the last 2 years.

    • I'd refer more specifically to social media use that caused actual deaths, and widespread deaths. For example, the massacre in Rwanda came about greatly with the help of social media spreading disinformation rapidly. More modern is present day India and Pakistan where violent mobs are formed quickly to avenge slights with death.

  • Yeah, it would make sense the Twitter would hire her to decide what fake news and what isn't.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

      Her job, and that of that board, was not about deciding who was right or what or what was disinformation, or being a though police. It was to respond to foreign threats designed to sow confuse in the public, damage confidence, etc. The same stuff that has already happened. Russia DID try to interfere in the 2016 election, even if there was no collusion it does not mean that Russia was innocent. For future examples; what if a foreign country started bombarding the social media with reports that election

  • Until Musk takes over

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

      Until Musk takes over

      ..then it will be modified to remove any "misinformation" about Tesla. I better get prepared now with my Musk-approved statements.

      "Tesla's cars are very affordable."
      "Tesla's autopilot is perfectly safe."
      "Tesla's SuperCharger network is extensive and always convenient."

    • They need to ban Elon's account so he gets emotional. That will force him to pay the $54.20 per share.

      Play the game. Get that money.

    • This is good for him. He can fire people out of the commit log.

  • shadowbanning is slimy... CLARITY IS A MUST (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2022 @09:13PM (#62551044)

    the fact that social media platforms can artificially reduce reach without the author even knowing is concerning and manipulative

    rules have to be way more clear and there have to be chances to contest

    labeling is usually a better idea than faking influence

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Agreed. Ban all social media.

        I'm gonna miss /.

        Err..there's nothing social about Slashdot...

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 20, 2022 @07:12AM (#62551854)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • "Taking their hands off the wheel is the same as choosing to promote lies."

        There are those who would counter with the claim that Twitter both permits lies to be promoted and suppresses true posts on their platform. Are we arguing over whether Twitter is an honest broker of truth? Do we have sufficient evidence to support any opinion on that?

        Indeed, are we asking the right questions here at all? Me, I'm resigned to expecting all social media platforms to make decisions on content that I will disagree with,

    • How does this get upmodded on a site where posts modded down to -1 are not shown unless explicitly requested. Do the mods not know how the mod system works? (or are they just troll farms?) If you think slashdot doesn't outright take stuff down if they decide to then you haven't been here long enough. Twitter is in a terrible situation where when they say a post will be "not shown" they often really mean they just won't try to use it to make money off of (i.e. "increase engagement"). (hint, it's right t

    • There is no natural level of reach to use as a baseline. All reach is something they are granting you as a boon. There is a limit to how much content can be pushed at once. No one deserves to dominate the platform's reach.

    • Twitter tells you the number of views your tweets get, so it's obvious if they have shadow banned you. On other sites like Reddit, you will know if a post of yours doesn't get any upvotes, or you can just load the site in a private browser and see if your post appears.

  • "Holy shit! I just saw a column of Russian supply trucks going the road near Uncle Oleg's farm! Get your molotovs and javelins!"

    "We're sorry. This tweet promotes violence during a crisis and cannot be independently verified and is blocked. There is no way to appeal this decision."

    • Re:Great policy. No downsides (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @10:16PM (#62551126) Homepage

      "We're sorry. This tweet promotes violence during a crisis and cannot be independently verified and is blocked. There is no way to appeal this decision."

      Some people tend to think of social media doing this sort of thing to serve a partisan bias, but they do it to everyone. My partner got a several-day ban from Facebook for uploading a promotional photo of a new Samsung phone that their algorithm incorrectly identified as being pornographic. There was no way to appeal it either, he had to just wait it out.

      I think I managed to get a few posts flagged with a warning for using keywords associated with disinformation, because "Don't listen to the Ivermectin crowd - go get your Covid-19 vaccine!" is too much nuance for a dumb algorithm to grasp, apparently. What could possibly go wrong?

      Annoyingly, that's just how these sites are run, and agreeing to it is most likely buried deep in the bowels of the TOS that nobody reads.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        To be fair, for the type of an exceedingly vain personality that is required to become the hall monitor for Facebook, I imagine having latest and greatest high status item like a new Samsung phone would look pornographic.

        So even if you appealed, the only difference would be that said hall monitor would rub one out to said pornographic image of the newest phone before hitting "deny appeal" button.

        Or probably after, since the climax would be the combination of the phone AND ability to punish people.

      • "We're sorry. This tweet promotes violence during a crisis and cannot be independently verified and is blocked. There is no way to appeal this decision."

        Some people tend to think of social media doing this sort of thing to serve a partisan bias, but they do it to everyone. My partner got a several-day ban from Facebook for uploading a promotional photo of a new Samsung phone that their algorithm incorrectly identified as being pornographic. There was no way to appeal it either, he had to just wait it out.

        I think I managed to get a few posts flagged with a warning for using keywords associated with disinformation, because "Don't listen to the Ivermectin crowd - go get your Covid-19 vaccine!" is too much nuance for a dumb algorithm to grasp, apparently. What could possibly go wrong?

        Annoyingly, that's just how these sites are run, and agreeing to it is most likely buried deep in the bowels of the TOS that nobody reads.

        Dang, it's almost like some sort of principle should have been figured out hundreds of years ago about free speech.

      • Good job, claiming social media is nonpartisan and citing a non-political example as proof.

        Your vaccine example might be seen as an example of failure of 'the algorithm' by some, but many would rather not see the keywords be permitted at all.

        I'm gonna argue for transparency.

  • Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khchung ( 462899 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @09:35PM (#62551070) Journal

    So Twitter gets to decide what is truth during a crisis. That is absolutely going to work well. /s

    • Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by narcc ( 412956 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @10:34PM (#62551156) Journal

      Who else? It's their platform.

      Though I'd like you to consider that, perhaps, it's not the best idea to get information from social media during a crisis. Or, you know, any other time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Arethan ( 223197 )

        Any way you slice it, people that accept random shitposts on social media platforms as "truth" are fucking sheep. If they didn't get their drivel there, they'd get it from the tabloid stand at the gas station. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's just a new delivery mechanism.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Though I'd like you to consider that, perhaps, it's not the best idea to get information from social media during a crisis. Or, you know, any other time.

        I forget, has the Bezos Washington Post issued any corrections and apologies for spending years publishing lies about Trump and Russian collusion?

        Unfortunately, the mainstream media is at least as bad as the worst of social media when it comes to "truth". In the last 5-6 years (at least), the social media has been more correct than the mainstream medi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          lies about Trump and Russian collusion

          Lies? LOL! Name one! Read the Muller report.

      • You certainly don't want the government owning the social media platforms, that'd be a disaster. People can make alternative platforms, but if they're just going to push their own lies they'll be marginalized and ignored; witness Conservopedia full of absurdist and nonsense articles, or Trump's Truth going and doing it's own banning of posts.

    • No, you do (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @10:36PM (#62551160)
      by choosing not to use Twitter, a private website, as a source of news and information.

      Now, if you want to give Twitter and other major corporations power over you, that's your right too. But stop pretending that it's them making that choice and not you.

      Read more. Vote more. Read more about who you vote for. Don't vote for "fun" candidates. If candidates hold rallies that's a red flag. If their adverts look professionally done that's another. Read their policies. Ignore their rallies and adverts.

      • If candidates hold rallies that's a red flag.

        I suppose if they're promoting communism, they might not enjoy the attention. Seriously though, I'm just messin' with you there. Most candidates are going to have rallies. I went to one of Hillary's in '16 and she (or whoever was in charge of it) booked too small of a venue. I got to stand outside, had no idea what was going on (because they didn't set up any A/V equipment outside), and eventually she came out and apologized that there wasn't enough room.

        In hindsight, that was kind of a harbinger of wha

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • So . . . you're saying you consider Twitter a source of news and information.

            No, I was saying rsilvergun's political advice seemed a little more off-kilter than usual.

            As for Twitter, I don't really use it all that often. Hanging over every word of politicians/celebrities has never been my thing, and Tweeting when you're unfamous is just shouting into a void. I really don't mind waiting for the news to filter through to better vetted mediums (and that's not saying much, these days).

          • Twitter is a source of linking ot other sources of news. If they post a Reuters or AFP story, then it's likely to have had a minimum of oversight in a real news bureau first, for example. 99.9% of what is happening on Twitter with regards to "news" is having people share, reshare, and comment heavily on existing stories. But even then, news is the minority of Twitter, it likely has more activity involving celebrities and the goofy stuff they do or say (including Trump).

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yes, I can choose to not get my info from Twitter and Facebook.
        But what about all the Luckyos and Trump voters that do? They also get to vote. And there's more of them than there are sensible people.

    • Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:4, Insightful)

      by t.reagan ( 7420066 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @10:39PM (#62551166)
      You are saying what you don't like, but you aren't offering anything better. Should anonymous bots decide what is true by flooding the algorithms? Russia? China? North Korea? Where is the accountability?

      Is the anonymous khchung account the source of truth? Maybe that is the answer. /s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by khchung ( 462899 )

        You are saying what you don't like, but you aren't offering anything better.

        America used to know what is better "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".

        It seemed Americans have forgot what freedom of speech was.

        Now America's motto is "Do as what I say, not as what I do".

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They are probably worried about Trump having another run at the presidency, and starting all the voter fraud bullshit up again. As we saw it doesn't take too much to get a bunch of idiots to storm the Capitol building. Sadly I have a feeling that labelling tweets as misinformation will just make them more believable to those folk.

      There's always Parler and Gab if you want misinformation. The market has provided you with alternatives.

      • Doesn't take much effort at all either to have valuable tax money wasted in endless shill recount audits. The purpose there is not to actually find wrongdoing, but to spread the idea that everything is corrupt so we should just abandon democracy and annoint the guy we want. Witness laws being pushed to allow state legislators to override the vote when appointing to the electoral college, the replacement of honest secretaries of state with partisan toadies, etc. It doesn't take many death threats at all b

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by teg ( 97890 )

      So Twitter gets to decide what is truth during a crisis. That is absolutely going to work well. /s

      It's a hard problem. E.g. during covid, you had a lot of misinformation from anti-vaxxers, people who wouldn't wear masks, people who promoted horse medicine etc. You also had e.g. misinformation campaigns trying to discredit the US election. And of course, you have idiots like QAnon and Pizzagate.

      An interesting example:The TV channel "Russia today" run by the Russian government was very heavily involved in antivax information in Europe, but it was provax in Russia. Should that misinformation be labeled - o

      • Labels are not going to solve that some (mostly) well-funded individuals are at war with facts and reality. And they won't solve that some vulnerable (mostly) poor people feel better if they can distanced themselves from facts and reality and that the two make interesting bedfellows.

        However, the labels still help quite a bit. For those who are interested in facts and reality, if the labeler makes an honest attempt, the presence/lack of a label lets us know how skeptical to be. This is more important th

    • That's their corporate right to free speech. They can choose to publish & hide whatever they want. When has that ever not been the case with corporations, including the media? The only difference here is that they're using algorithms to do it in bulk, with little to no human oversight. Algorithms detect patterns, not what they mean. Anyone with a little human intelligence will find it trivially easy to circumvent them. It'll be even more effective to train something like GPT-3 text generators to produce

  • > Hoax tweets and other misinformation regularly go viral during emergencies, as users rush to share unverified information.

    first time i ever noticed this firsthand was the morning of 9/11 and the rumor that there was a bomb at the State Department

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      Yeah, no.

      I remember the internet that day. I was working in telecom back them. Social media wasn't a thing, and the internet was mostly broken.

      Really, no one knew what the hell was happening, and while there was a lot of speculation, no one was spreading baseless rumors. (Not that you could, what with the tubes being clogged the way they were.) We all basically got on the same page by late afternoon, save a few conspiracy nuts, who we could safely ignore back then.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        The TV was our internet back then. The difference was ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Headline News, and even Fox, actually carried reliable news, so they weren't willing to ruin their reputation, at least not without saying what they were saying was unconfirmed. Then the wars started for people's attention and that all went out the door. You see, they realized that if they got people to watch them first, even if they said something that wasn't completely true, nobody cared. Fox news is really good at this, but the

        • The news isn't perfect. It's gathered and presented by journalists who have to be very enthusiastic about their work due to the poor pay. Some TV personalities get paid big money. But the vast majority work for pathetic wages.

          It's clear that every news source panders somewhat to their audience. That's part of being in the news business. That doesn't make the news unreliable.

          If the fact density is high you can "read through" the bias. If the fact density is low, the news is useless. That's why you

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Oh you sweet summer child. Back then, the only thing is that it was decentralized and realm of nerds because of usabilty.

        I distinctly remember massive discussions on possibilities during the events and in the following week or two on large political and military channels on IRC. It's just that more people at the time didn't know what IRC was and barely knew what internet was.

        But for those of us who knew, conspiracy theories were just as high flying as they are today.

  • What is true? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoeRandomHacker ( 983775 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @09:54PM (#62551092)

    The middle of a crisis is the time when it is going to be most difficult to know what is true and what is false. Blocking anything will inevitably block true information which would be good to know. The best one can do is apply a healthy #grainofsalt to all crisis-related posts, regardless of source. I would not be upset if social media added that tag automatically, so long as it does it universally.

    • Truth is what you find out after the dust settles. If you're getting your breaking news from Twitter, there's going to be a bad signal-to-noise ratio, no matter what. That's the nature of letting any idiot with a typewriter (or in this case, a cell phone) write the news.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Then you notice the source.
        If it's from a source you trust. One that is correct most of the time. You can give it more credence.

        If it's from an unknown, or a Trumper. Then you know it's most likely fake/wrong/stupid/all of the above.

        Education. It's good.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Your recommendations might actually have value, if not for a society full of lemmings who will run off every social media cliff gone viral.

      Retractions would consume 80% of broadcasting time if we suddenly forced the entire MSM to be factual. Yeah, peddling bullshit is that profitable. Good luck fixing Greed.

    • And that's also the time when purveyors of misinformation put in the most time and effort to spread lies. This is why sources of information really need to have reputational scores both in public opinion and on the platform at hand.

      As an example, the New York Post had a pretty bad reputation. They've since upped their game. They aren't great. But they do come up with stories that others don't and, for the most part, the stories are credible. The opinions that they run are still borderline ridiculous

  • Censorship (Score:1, Insightful)

    by stevenaaus ( 895385 )
    It's called censorship of free speech, and is just the norm now.

  • Fucktards? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @11:52PM (#62551284)
    How the fuck is Twitter going to know what's false and what's not during a crisis? Do they have journalists phoning in or sending updates to the people making decisions? Or are the decision makers going to read new sources that tilt toward "their" liking and deciding what's false and what's not? Who comes up with shit like this? I swear, if I ran my company like this I'd be out of business.

  • It's people that share info.

  • Maybe if “real” journalists still exis (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IHTFISP ( 859375 ) on Friday May 20, 2022 @02:40AM (#62551512)

    Maybe if “real” journalists & objective investigative reporters still existed, they might be relied upon as discerners of “the truth” (not speculation) as we know it to date. Present-day “fact checkers” and partisan employees of Big Tech / Mainstream Media / Government Entities just don't cut it.

    There was a time, for example, when if a narrative was not confirmed by at least three independent sources (not a 3-way echo chamber circle jerk), then that narrative was not reported, neither as news nor consensus nor “anonymous sources”, etc. Total radio silence until confirmed, including forensic authenticity of any documents involved. This was drilled into students' brains by any and all credible schools of journalism at the time.

    Violation of this sacrosanct rule of legitimate journalism is what tanked Dan Rather's career as a “reporter”/“news reader”/“anchor”: he reported on unconfirmed documents that turned out to be a hoax regarding the Texas Air National Guard service of George W. Bush's (“Bush the Lesser” ;-) ). Ref: https://enwp.org/Dan_Rather#Ki... [enwp.org]

    Here in the future, social media & weekend warrior bloggers have corrupted legitimate journalism to the extent that it no longer exists. Truly sad, that.

    • Unfortunately people care more about getting news that fits their preconceived notions far more than they care about getting objective facts. Since they've already compromised on that much, why should companies care about anything other than delivering that to their customers as soon as possible?

      Frankly the whole news media is ripe to be upset and I won't be sad to see it go. You can only burn the public so many times before they realize that comfortable lies don't magically become true just because you

    • Requiring threes sources was always the exception, not the rule. That's a policy generally geared for anonymous sources. If you name your source, one is sufficient.

  • Won't someone think of the peaches?

  • Why do we need another set of parents? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Friday May 20, 2022 @08:04AM (#62551928)
    Unless a user is under 18 why would this ever be a thing? People don’t need another set of parents in the form of a corporation. It should be expected that adults can think critically and skeptically of what they read on the internet. You can join the military, drive massive hunks of metal at fast speeds, borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for college, and make life or death decisions but can’t be trusted to make up your mind for yourself on Twitter? Ultimately these decisions shouldn’t come down to a few people in a room to determine what is true. It’s like we have already forgotten that even the PRESIDENT and US government with a trillion dollar military complex behind it was wrong when it came to claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Under this Twitter probably would have limited or silenced people for saying “there are no weapons of mass destruction.”

    • We have adults that think like children. Not just in their 20's but people well into their 60's. We let these giant babies drive cars, vote, and buy guns too. Sometimes we even elect them to office. Because who better to rule over an immature populace than a petulant child.

    • It should be expected that adults can think critically and skeptically of what they read on the internet.

      And yet the one thing social media has really shown us is that a huge portion of the population had absolutely no ability to think critically. People are content in their bubbles of confirmation bias, consuming nuggets of "information" that are fed to them by the social media algorithms. Doing "their own research" aboyt critical subjects when they have absolutely no clue how research works and generally have made up their minds anyway an "go with their guts" because it feels good and makes them feel smart.

      • That's true but we should expect the majority to be able to debate and be more convincing if they are in fact doing more research and bringing more relevant information. Twitter is great for finding people, experts, doctors, and people with some kind of credentials. I find the worst social media site in existence to be Reddit because what was meant to vote up good content to the top has turned into voting up only liked content. The worst kind of bubble because contrary opinions are not only downvoted but i

    • Unless a user is under 18 why would this ever be a thing? People donâ(TM)t need another set of parents in the form of a corporation.

      Welcome to the planet Earth. I hope you enjoy your visit here. There are some things you should realize about the locals: They absolutely MUST get involved in your decision making since you might make the wrong choice (and they know exactly what the right choice is). I highly recommend you visit the southwest for some Tex-Mex tacos. The worse the location looks, the better the tacos will be! (don't forget to tip your waiter)

  • In this thread (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by kunwon1 ( 795332 )
    scumbags defending a sexual harasser who also happens to be CEO of a company they like

    I would say that Elon Musk is just a MAGA troll at this point, but now we're starting to hear from the people he's hurt personally. I hope that faucet doesn't dry up - we need to know. He's not just a troll, he's despicable, abusive, and amoral.

  • You all need to learn the world is full of liars. It's not a trustworthy if you can't confirm something beyond looking at other tweets and bizarre "news" websites (which are reporting on tweets). Twitter is going to try and do this for you, and often fail at it. But you should have been doing it for yourself all along.

  • Business as usual for the censor squad.

  • Best practice (Score:3)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Friday May 20, 2022 @12:41PM (#62552584)

    If Twitter's geniuses are worried about propagating misinformation during a crisis, they should just shut the platform down until the crisis is over. Problem solved.

  • Another brain dead move.

Slashdot Top Deals

Like punning, programming is a play on words.

Close