Selectively fact checking things that are arguably opinions rather than factual claims in the first place, using flimsy evidence, whilst leaving actual factual misinformation to spread is definitely picking sides.
Not fact checking is only picking a side once you have decided to fact check. Before all of this twitter could claim to be a medium of communication. There isn't implicit trust that something is true because it is written on paper, posted on a billboard, or appears on TV. By choosing to mark tweets as true or false, they are no longer just a medium of communication. We can now imply that if twitter does not mark a tweet as false, they are endorsing that tweet as true.
There has to be a line somewhere, otherwise the implication is that nobody can be held correct by fact checking. Snopes and Politifact do a pretty good job, IMO. I think this just touches on the fact that the GOP and Trumpists in general are more likely to engage in distorting the truth or outright fabricating lies.
or perhaps you use it against the most egregious offences by users with a high number of followers. not much point fact checking my tweets because at worst I could misinform 6 people, perhaps if it was retweeted a lot it would then be fact checked. Trump's verbal/typed diarrhea gets everywhere.
Maybe a statement that we can all agree on would be: _selectively_ fact checking implies picking sides?
I think it's a point of contention (colored by existing political views) as to whether or not Twitter is selectively fact checking here.
Hopefully this isn't too controversial, there's a lot of hostility already in this thread, and I don't want to contribute to it.
Selectively fact checking things that are arguably opinions rather than factual claims in the first place, using flimsy evidence, whilst leaving actual factual misinformation to spread is definitely picking sides.
Can you explain how not fact checking implies picking a side?
No fact check = implicit trust
Not fact checking is only picking a side once you have decided to fact check. Before all of this twitter could claim to be a medium of communication. There isn't implicit trust that something is true because it is written on paper, posted on a billboard, or appears on TV. By choosing to mark tweets as true or false, they are no longer just a medium of communication. We can now imply that if twitter does not mark a tweet as false, they are endorsing that tweet as true.
> Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.
Fact checking with partisan media sources does imply picking sides.
There has to be a line somewhere, otherwise the implication is that nobody can be held correct by fact checking. Snopes and Politifact do a pretty good job, IMO. I think this just touches on the fact that the GOP and Trumpists in general are more likely to engage in distorting the truth or outright fabricating lies.
And they're not fact checking Biden.
Biden doesn’t make multiple false claims everyday.
Also Biden’s not the President (yet).
it sort of does, WHO they use to check the facts can very def define what side they're on.
or perhaps you use it against the most egregious offences by users with a high number of followers. not much point fact checking my tweets because at worst I could misinform 6 people, perhaps if it was retweeted a lot it would then be fact checked. Trump's verbal/typed diarrhea gets everywhere.