Who knows what Twitter will look like tomorrow. But for now, @birdwatch (Community Notes) is here to stay. As its user base expands, will it effectively scale to make an impact on misinformation? poynter.org/ifcn/2022/elon…
@birdwatch No doubt @birdwatch has shown it is effective at reducing the reach of misleading tweets. And it has drawn bipartisan support — AND love from very smart misinfo researchers. I found that use has exploded, and its contributors are slated to jump 10% weekly.
@birdwatch As I mention in the article, the accuracy of helpful notes (I know the Birdwatch team doesn't like that word) has absolutely improved — nearly every helpful note now includes a legitimate source.
But fact-checkers and Birdwatchers themselves are concerned about the # of PUBLIC notes. About 11-14% actually show up thanks to a VERY GOOD algorithm surfacing helpful notes. So 100 tweets may get flagged for every 1,000 notes. Not bad, but how much #misinfo is shared daily?
The aim of the algorithm — broad, bipartisan consensus — is IMO at odds with the idea of fighting #misinformation *at scale*. Right now, it's hard for anyone to agree on basic facts, let alone context for inflammatory stuff you see on Twitter.
I don't think anyone has the answer to marry those two noble goals. And I content that @birdwatch is an extremely interesting, effective attempt t address the misinformation problem in general. Also an amazing tool for researchers.
@birdwatch Big shoutout to @sethsalex for working on this w/ me! One of the joys of working @Poynter is 1) the chance to collaborate with cool people and 2) the ability to write whatever dumb stuff pops into my head
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
