The Pointer Institute published a column Thursday in which Twitter and Facebook exploded as “arbiters of truth” after tech giants made “contradictory and dubious” decisions to censor a New York Post article that harms the Democratic presidential candidate. Joe Biden.
Christina Tardagil, deputy director of the International Fact-Finding Network, wrote this bubble column under the headline: “Without methodology and transparency, Facebook and Twitter become ‘arbiters of truth,’ saying that those who do not believe in danger are simply ‘naive.̵7; ”
TWITTER LINKS TRUMP CAMPAIGN “ VIOLATED ” RULES, BLOCK ACCOUNT FOR 2 TWITS TO SEND REPORT ON STATEMENT OF THOUGHTS
“It seems that Facebook and Twitter have decided to take a position that they have avoided for so long. Less than a month has passed since election day, and both companies have finally become arbiters of truth on the Internet. The naive are those who believe that it is not dangerous, “Tardagila wrote before describing in detail the events that led to the republican meaning. Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham and Josh Hawley called on Twitter and Facebook executives to testify about alleged censorship on social media.
Critics have long said that social media platforms this week are stifling reports criticizing Democrats and censoring the New York Post blast, which aims to show emails from Hunter Biden sending his father to his business dealings in Ukraine. as it brings to the fore.
“Professional fact-checkers need to be transparent about their methodology, sources and funding for their organization. They must also have a public policy of correction and practice non-partisanship, “Tardagila wrote. “When Facebook publicly acknowledged that it was also reducing the spread of potential misinformation through other methods, the company surprised not only its users but also the IFCN community.”
EX-FACEBOOK GONCHO TIM KENDALL ANSWERS THAT A GREAT TECHNICIAN IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, CALLS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA REFORM
Then she asked: “What methodology do Facebook employees use in such situations? How do they determine that less should be distributed? What sources do they rely on to decide that something may be wrong? And … are the employees really non-partisan in these decisions? ”
The Center for Media Research recently found that employees of “both Facebook and Twitter have contributed more than 90 percent of their political contributions to Democrats over the 2020 cycle.” This came after another recent report showed that the vast majority of campaign contributions from employees of large technology firms came to Democratic candidates.
“Trying to explain their decisions, the answers of both companies left more questions in the public than answers,” Tardagila wrote. “Facebook has stated that it has always adhered to this policy regarding questionable content and has simply applied it again. However, the fact-checking community was unaware of this … which is a bit strange, given that they are working together to address the misinformation. ”
“SOCIAL DILEMMA” FILMER ANSWERS THAT “ANY COUNTRY” CAN PAY FOR ELECTIONS WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DISINFORMATION
She then noted that Twitter’s initial allegation that it did not allow the distribution of hacked content also failed.
“Some fact-checkers laughed at this statement, recalling previous episodes involving Wikileaks and the National Security Agency,” Tardagila wrote.
“Transparency is extremely important for the fact-checking community and for reducing fraud and misinformation,” she added. The decision to reduce or prevent the distribution of the New York Post based on some mysterious, non-transparent criteria and unknown methodology is a serious mistake. It’s a step that brings these companies closer to a slippery slope of censorship. ”
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION
Marisa Schultz of Fox News joined the report