Will this include CBC, bbc, etc? What about media outlets that receive subsidies? Further, Noam Chomsky in manufacturing consent makes a good argument that the entire media is coopted simply by the fact that governments and corporations can selectively provide access to interviews or statements, or provide good video capture opportunities, which incentivized you to fall in line. Trump does this a lot more explicitly than anybody in the past but it was a thing previously too. Harper in Canada was attempting this before he got voted out in a huge strategic voting push one election
Or is this just a way of saying they will flag Chinese and Russian connections?
> The labels will go on the accounts for China Daily, Russia Today, Sputnik and other media outlets, a Twitter spokesperson said. But not Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, two media outlets funded by the U.S. government, or NPR and the BBC. The blog post described NPR and the BBC as “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence.”
First, it's not just this move, but it certainly contributes. I think it's fine to label state-influenced accounts, but why not do it across the board and label all state-influenced accounts? BBC is state media. NPR is state media and is constantly accused of bias, as is the CPB.
Twitter also does not specify how they make the determination other than to say that it consulted some unnamed members of their Trust & Safety Council. That thing is a mess in itself, and counts the ridiculous Dangerous Speech Project among its members.
All of this is to say Twitter is not only opining on the content, but clearly exercising control over what is published.
You're not answering my question. What exactly does this have to do with 230? Twitter can label you the Easter Bunny and still rely on 230. People seem to believe that activate moderation contravenes 230, but that is obviously not true. Is there some other 230 concern I'm missing?
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times will be on this list right?
“Outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution" describes it perfectly. Or are they not counting foreign governments as "state"?
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 33.7 ms ] threadhttps://twitter.com/VOANews https://twitter.com/RFERL
Or is this just a way of saying they will flag Chinese and Russian connections?
> The labels will go on the accounts for China Daily, Russia Today, Sputnik and other media outlets, a Twitter spokesperson said. But not Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, two media outlets funded by the U.S. government, or NPR and the BBC. The blog post described NPR and the BBC as “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence.”
Twitter also does not specify how they make the determination other than to say that it consulted some unnamed members of their Trust & Safety Council. That thing is a mess in itself, and counts the ridiculous Dangerous Speech Project among its members.
All of this is to say Twitter is not only opining on the content, but clearly exercising control over what is published.
“Outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution" describes it perfectly. Or are they not counting foreign governments as "state"?