After a year of testing, Twitter just announced that it’s proceeding to the next stage of testing its crowdsourced fact-checking program – ‘Birdwatch’. Birdwatch essentially enables Twitter users to add Tweet notes that they believe might contain misleading information.
Birds in Flight
Through Birdwatch, users can manually add notes and tips on Tweets, helping to provide more context for future readers. Of course, there are a few setbacks to it, such as people who might abuse it to silence dissenting opinions. However, Birdwatch reports don’t limit a Tweet’s reach and performance, but merely provide more context to those looking for it. Twitter’s continuously working with fact-checking groups and journalists to add more credibility to notes and claims.
As Twitter explains:
“Starting today, a small (and randomized) group of people on Twitter in the US will see Birdwatch notes directly on some Tweets. They’ll also be able to rate notes, providing input that will help improve Birdwatch’s ability to add context that is helpful to people from different points of view.”
Based on official screenshots, some users are now able to see Birdwatch notes displayed upfront on Tweets on their timeline. They’ll then be prompted to rate the supplemental info to further qualify it. No doubt that many free speech activists are raising eyebrows right now, but could also be a simple way to facilitate crowdsourced fact-checking while reducing the questionability of claims.
This could be problematic, such as in the case of certain groups ‘brigading’ these reports to counter claims. Though to note, Twitter does add a couple of qualifiers for displayed notes.
“To appear on a Tweet, notes first need to be rated helpful by enough Birdwatch contributors from different perspectives…”
So some form of weighting is placed on Birdwatch responses, potentially eliminating bias to some extent. This process is still primarily in development, explaining why Twitter isn’t rushing things and opting to roll out updates in tranches instead.
Indeed, the program has thus far produced some encouraging results, with Twitter reporting that those who’ve viewed Birdwatch notes 20-40% less likely to agree with potentially misleading Tweets. Either way, a majority of users find it useful. Twitter’s still working out the full details, but it has made various changes to the process, ensuring diversity among Birdwatch participants, adding Birdwatch aliases so that people don’t have to worry about identity breaches when reporting.
The Wrap
So far, Birdwatch remains to be a mostly ambiguous program, and it’s still too early to say whether or not it’ll be a valuable element. At most, the concept at least has merit, utilizing a Reddit-like crowd-sourcing system to refute questionable claims, outside the level of mere downvotes.
It could be a potentially valuable addition to Twitter’s broader detection scope. Despite having been in testing for years, something as sensitive as this only benefits from more rigorous and comprehensive testing, which makes Twitter’s cautious approach the most effective means to progress the initiative.
Subscribe to our‘Bottoms Up!’ Newsletter. Get the latest social media blogs about news, updates, trends, and effective social media strategies to take your business to the highest level from Tristan Ahumada and Jeff Pfitzer.
Please note:
This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin.
Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.
