Twitter is a platform on the internet, and upwards of 200 million people use it every day to share their thoughts about everything from the daily mundane to exceedingly serious world-altering events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
All that is to say Twitter, like virtually every other platform on the internet that allows people to post content, contains misinformation. What’s unusual about Twitter is how it’s handling that misinformation.
Platforms like YouTube and Facebook—both of which have had serious issues dealing with misinformation—handle things like conspiracy theories by officially partnering with third-party fact-checking organizations. These organizations treat fact-checking and flagging content that could be harmful (for example, lies about COVID vaccines or accusations of mass shooting survivors being “false flag” actors) as a job—because it is their job.
Subscribe for daily Tubefilter Top Stories
Twitter’s Birdwatch program takes a different tack.
Introduced in January 2021, Birdwatch calls on volunteer users to flag viral tweets that contain misinformation, and add corrective notes to those tweets with links to trustworthy sources.
As the Washington Post explains, when a user joins Birdwatch (a process that requires applying with a verified email address and receiving approval from Twitter), they can add a fact-checking note to any tweet they want. Other Birdwatch checkers are then asked to vote on whether or not that note is helpful.
The program as a whole appears to be a Wikipedia-esque approach to fact-checking, where Twitter is hoping that if enough fact-enthusiast users participate, the collective consciousness of the internet might coalesce and spit out a self-maintaining ecosystem of information.
So, is that happening?
10,000 fact-checkers flagging 57 tweets a day
According to the Post, not quite. It dug into Birdwatch’s first 13 months of existence and found that, while Twitter says the U.S.-only pilot counts 10,000 fact-checkers, just 359 users have flagged tweets so far in 2022.
In 2021, the average number of tweets flagged per day by Birdwatch contributors was 57. The average number in 2022, prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was 43.
And while some of the flags/notes approved Birdwatchers have added to tweets are factual corrections as intended, the Washington Post found that others were decidedly not, like one that just said “baba booie.” So, it’s possible the platform is struggling with the prospect of having to oversee Birdwatchers’ work, at least until more active users join the program.
It’s worth noting that Birdwatch notes aren’t visible to the general public yet. Only users in the Birdwatch pilot can see each other’s flags; what they do behind the scenes isn’t visible to the general Twitter population, and doesn’t affect tweets on the front-facing user side.
Also worth noting: In August 2021, Twitter announced two formal fact-checking partnerships–one with Reuters, and one with The Associated Press.
Considering those partnerships and the seemingly glacial approach to developing Birdwatch, it’s possible Twitter has become leery that crowdsourced fact-checking might not be the solution.
In a statement to the Post, a company spokesperson said that Twitter plans to “scale up [Birdwatch] as we’re able to do so safely, and when it can help improve learning. Our focus is on ensuring that Birdwatch is something people find helpful and can help inform understanding.”
Following the Post’s report, Twitter VP of product Keith Coleman said the company plans to expand the Birdwatch pilot “very soon.”
