Jerry Levine
A
thread 1/11
Hey @cbouzy , as mentioned (and some of this you know, I'm certain): Birdwatch (now "community notes") was initially an invite-only, targeted group that was meeting in a Discord group for development. I'm not entirely certain how folks were selected
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
Avatar Avatar Avatar
0
2
14
Jerry Levine
A
thread 2/11
(I got an invite from someone on the Birdwatch team to join the test/development group), but the original goal was to have community authors (avoiding Twitter personnel being a "central authority") and focused on providing useful context to help users confirm, evaluate, and understand Tweets.
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
3
Jerry Levine
A
thread 3/11
From the beginning, we were told that (1) all the data contributed would be publicly available and downloadable, (2) the underlying code for reputation calculation, consensus voting, etc., would be publicly available and released as open source (cf. GitHub Birdwatch) released under Apache 2.0).
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
3
Jerry Levine
A
thread 4/11
We were also informed that (3) Notes would not be used as a moderation tool nor affect enforcement of Twitter rules, and (4) the Birdwatch volunteers would be "anonymous" so as to avoid harassment for providing the Notes. The Birdwatch team started (from what I recall) by sharing links that needed
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
3
Jerry Levine
A
thread 5/11
Birdwatch notes in the Discord as well as holding sessions with all the Birdwatch volunteers to discuss what we thought would be important to comment on.

Certain things were communicated very clearly, including (a) that we needed to focus on verification and not on personal preference,
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
3
Jerry Levine
A
thread 6/11
(b) that the Birdwatch notes should provide accurate, verifiable context, (c) that it wasn't a "moderation" team but rather a tool for addressing misinformation by giving more context, and (d) there would be a voting system that would drive well-written, informative Notes to the top.
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
3
Jerry Levine
A
thread 7/11
Meanwhile, in the Discord, as time went on and people started to recognize that certain folks had expertise, there was a very active team of "I think this needs to be reviewed" folks who would post potentially misleading Tweets for review.
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
3
Jerry Levine
A
thread 8/11
Because (or despite) this being a volunteer team, people felt engaged and enjoyed having a potential to make a positive impact on Twitter, feeling that the Birdwatch Notes were actually helping curb disinformation (in fact, people had reported that the notes were helpful, that the Notes slowed down
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
4
Jerry Levine
A
thread 9/11
misinformation/disinformation, and that through the rating and review system, there was high accuracy and validation of Birdwatch Notes).

Personally, I think it was a generally positive program!
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
4
Jerry Levine
A
thread 10/11
Rather than being a moderation tool, it allowed people to be provided with information that a wide population of users (with disparate views) had determined to be helpful and appropriate.
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
4
Jerry Levine
A
thread 11/11
People were free to ignore the Notes but we were told that there was a noticeable impact on sharing of misinformation once a Note was attached, voted upon, and validated.
10:27 AM - Nov 21, 2023
1
5
Blair Houghton
A
In response to Jerry Levine.
It's still prone to bias and the only recourse is shouting into the bitbucket.
11:42 AM - Nov 21, 2023
0
2

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}