• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dystopian Democrats misinformation board's "Mary Poppins" calls for editable tweets.

Moniker for clandestine editing of misinformation with one's own.

Not clandestine. Adding a comment from a clearly identifiable source.

Seems to me like she is saying there should be a "Reply Plus" feature for some users. So their reply would feature prominently under the tweet. It doesn't change the original tweet and people can choose which they find more persuasive.

If handled right might not be a bad idea actually. A limited number of people from across the political spectrum could provide balance to tweets posting under their own name.

They would, in turn, be accountable for their comments and could lose their status if they are abusing it.

Might actually be worth a limited trial. Might work, might be a disaster, but the status quo is hardly working well so it's worth trialing a number of ways to mitigate harm.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not clandestine. Adding a comment from a clearly identifiable source.

Seems to me like she is saying there should be a "Reply Plus" feature for some users. So their reply would feature prominently under the tweet. It doesn't change the original tweet and people can choose which they find more persuasive.

If handled right might not be a bad idea actually. A limited number of people from across the political spectrum could provide balance to tweets posting under their own name.

They would, in turn, be accountable for their comments and could lose their status if they are abusing it.

Might actually be worth a limited trial. Might work, might be a disaster, but the status quo is hardly working well so it's worth trialing a number of ways to mitigate harm.
So it's a form of a 'fairness doctrine' feature without editing the orginal tweet. .... hmmmm...

If its just that, with the orginal tweet untouchable, maybe it would very well be worth a trial run.

I could live with that.

I wonder why the term 'edit' was mentioned if it was just a reply/critique feature. That's the snag for me.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The problem is the 'Wikipedia' style editing by "verified users' mentioned as opposed to a simple reply and critique of said tweet.


Is still cloudy as to what that actually is.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
She's a paid liar. They chose an actor. They want someone to act and lie for them. Jen Psaki is another paid liar. I can see they eat their own soul everyday for a paycheck.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I guess what this woman, Jankowicz means, is: """ I possess the absolute truth, I am God. I know what the Truth is, and I can because I am I, and you guys are nobodys."""


Am I right?;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KW
So it's a form of a 'fairness doctrine' feature without editing the orginal tweet. .... hmmmm...

If its just that, with the orginal tweet untouchable, maybe it would very well be worth a trial run.

I could live with that.

I wonder why the term 'edit' was mentioned if it was just a reply/critique feature. That's the snag for me.

Edit does seem confusing, but that's the way I interpreted it.

The problem is the 'Wikipedia' style editing by "verified users' mentioned as opposed to a simple reply and critique of said tweet.

Any reply would not necessarily feature prominently, and would only be seen if you click on the tweet to see replies anyway.

This way it could be seen instantly along with the original tweet.

Allowing any verified user to do this seems a bad idea, but having a special verification for a smallish number of users, to challenge factual inaccuracies (not simply differences in opinion) while also being held accountable for the accuracy of their 'challenges' might work.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Oh Mary Poppins my dear, calls for editing when things are not clear. My dear it's clear when editing by ones peer, to make it clear my dear when editing by peer, makes things perfectly clear by one's peer, for you my dear, but maybe not my peer.


Nina Jankowicz says verified Twitter users should 'edit' tweets


Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

Must be an honor to have twitter certify your trustworthiness.
One way Twitter can monetize is make folks pay for their trustworthiness certification. :D
 

KW

Well-Known Member
Not clandestine. Adding a comment from a clearly identifiable source.

Seems to me like she is saying there should be a "Reply Plus" feature for some users. So their reply would feature prominently under the tweet. It doesn't change the original tweet and people can choose which they find more persuasive.

If handled right might not be a bad idea actually. A limited number of people from across the political spectrum could provide balance to tweets posting under their own name.

They would, in turn, be accountable for their comments and could lose their status if they are abusing it.

Might actually be worth a limited trial. Might work, might be a disaster, but the status quo is hardly working well so it's worth trialing a number of ways to mitigate harm.


It's all about leftists blocking information that exposes the truth about their agenda. Leftists consistently try to hide information that doesn't help them achieve their political goals.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
It's all about leftists blocking information that exposes the truth about their agenda. Leftists consistently try to hide information that doesn't help them achieve their political goals.

Oh, give it a rest.
 
Top