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

[Twilight Hue]

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!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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!

Good, wonderfull. We are winning! FREEDOM.

 

[KW]

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!

She typifies the modern Democrat.

Clueless, power hungry, and annoying!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good, wonderfull. We are winning! Dystopia!

Edited for misinformation! Bwahahahaha!!!

RF is so ahead of its time!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

She typifies the modern Democrat.

Clueless, power hungry, and annoying!

Good! We are winning! Go Democrats.

 

[Viker]

I just saw Ninja Jankowicz and edible tweets. Sorry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Edited for misinformation! Bwahahahaha!!!

Yeah, I have as many feelings as you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

She typifies the modern Democrat.

Clueless, power hungry, and annoying!

I'm thinking kickbacks lays somewhere as well....

 

[Twilight Hue]

I just saw Ninja Jankowicz and edible tweets. Sorry.

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

 

[Augustus]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, therefore it will absolutely go *UBAR.

 

[74x12]

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]

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?

 

[Augustus]

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]

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.

 

[KW]

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]

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.

 

[KW]

Oh, give it a rest.

Why?

You know I'm right.
That's what they've been doing for 20 years or more.