Comment by tobylane
5 years ago
It’s possible to have bias without editorialising, as far as I know Twitter only hides, deletes or bans. It doesn’t edit, the fact checking is appending.
5 years ago
It’s possible to have bias without editorialising, as far as I know Twitter only hides, deletes or bans. It doesn’t edit, the fact checking is appending.
How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
> How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
Hi, I think you're wrong. Here's the proof: I haven't edited your comment, but by replying I have just appended a statement to it without your permission.
Replying is different than officially annotating though. You can already reply on Twitter.
5 replies →
Lets take an other example.
There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".
Have I edited the painting and created a new painting? Is it a single art, or a separate painting and a comment? Do I need additional copyright permissions to create a derivative work, or can I use a painting licensed under Creative Common no derivative in order to create my own version of the Treachery of Images? When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
1 reply →
According to section 230, it is only relevant if it changes the meaning of the original content. If it's clearly different content, then it's clearly different content.