We are looking for people to test this in the United States. You can add notes with useful context to Tweets that you find misleading.
For now, these notes won’t appear directly on Twitter, but anyone in the United States can view them at: https://t.co/x4X4ffaGIm (2/3)
– Twitter support (@TwitterSupport) 25 January 2021
As part of the pilot program, users can apply participate. Twitter notes that it will only be available for a “small test group” initially, “but that it will add more candidates over time. Birdwatch Approved Contributors will then be able to select tweets with incorrect information and add their own notes, such as a fact-checking website.
For now, fact checks will live on a dedicated site Bird watching site, but Twitter says the goal is ultimately to integrate them directly into tweets “when there is consensus from a broad and diverse set of contributors.”
The project marks one of Twitter’s biggest forays into fact-checking. Unlike Facebook, Twitter has not had formal partnerships with third party fact checkers. Instead, the company relied on its own editorial team to add context to the tweets. Over the past year, the company has started adding tags to tweets with misinformation about COVID-19[female[feminine and the presidential election.
With Birdwatch, Twitter will no longer need to rely on its own employees for fact-checking. Users will be able to report fake virus information and add notes. Twitter stresses that it doesn’t assign “true” or “false” ratings like other fact-checking sites, but rather provides “useful context.” Twitter Told NBC News that Birdwatch users can also rate individual ratings to guard against any intentional manipulation.
Still, the effort could be controversial as Twitter’s previous attempts to verify the facts have helped fuel the climb Talk and other “free speech” alternatives to Twitter. The company says it spoke to more than 100 people “across the political spectrum” before Birdwatch and that there was “broad general support” for the project. The company suggested that people might be more receptive to fact-checking when it comes from another user, rather than Twitter or a “central authority.”
“We know it can be complicated and sometimes have issues, but we think it’s a model worth trying, ”says Twitter.