birdwatch

The greatest weakness in the scoring system [0] that I can see is age. There is a requirement for valid scoring to occur within 48 hours. > Made within the first 48 hours of the note’s creation (because we publicly release all rating data after 48 hours) [1] However, in the real world, our understanding of a message's context may actually take much longer than that. Especially when more information can come to light, that changes the landscape. The second greatest weakness I see is that rater's with a lower mean are automatically filtered. Whilst you can discuss using APIs to do it, if you have large groups of individuals dedicated to promoting specific viewpoints, you can utilise that manpower to de-rate anyone promoting an opposing view by ruining their helpfulness average. That makes the system easily abused by highly motivated politic

That is not new. The documentation is checked into GitHub[1]. It was checked in on March 2nd, 2022. This was a month before Musk bought his 9.2% share of Twitter. [1] https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch/blob/main/content/diver...

Does anyone here know how it works and thinks it can be easily abused? The paper is here[0], but I would be satisfied with an explanation from anyone who just generally knows what "bridge-based ranking"[1] is. I'm pretty excited about the idea and I wonder if people mostly just don't know or if I am being too optimistic. [0]: https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch/blob/main/birdwatch_pap... [1]: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/bridging-based-rank...

I thought the exact same thing. But then I noticed some code is also open-source. https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch/tree/main/static/source...

Birdwatch is a collaborative way to add helpful context to Tweets and keep people better informed Birdwatch is a pilot program that aims to create a better-informed world. It empowers people on Twitter to collaboratively add helpful notes to Tweets that might be misleading. https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch https://twitter.com/birdwatch

This is on point > The goal of all this activity is not to debate, converse or exchange information. The goal is to win by being maximally controversial, as that's the behavior that is rewarded. > the real issue: what gets amplified But it can be (at least partially) fixed if you change the optimization function. I advocate for that here: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/bridging-based-rank... And Twitter's Birdwatch (that Elon recently got all excited about when it fact checked the White House: https://twitter.com/metaviv/status/1587884806020415491) actually does this "bridging-based ranking" for adding context on tweets. Here's the paper with details on how it works for Birdwatch: https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch/blob/main/birdwatch_pap... (you can also check out the source code in that repo).