birdwatch VS browser_extension

The greatest weakness in the scoring system [0] that I can see is age. There is a requirement for valid scoring to occur within 48 hours.

> Made within the first 48 hours of the note’s creation (because we publicly release all rating data after 48 hours) [1]

However, in the real world, our understanding of a message's context may actually take much longer than that. Especially when more information can come to light, that changes the landscape.

The second greatest weakness I see is that rater's with a lower mean are automatically filtered. Whilst you can discuss using APIs to do it, if you have large groups of individuals dedicated to promoting specific viewpoints, you can utilise that manpower to de-rate anyone promoting an opposing view by ruining their helpfulness average.

That makes the system easily abused by highly motivated political factions, especially foreign ones that admit to employing large groups of people for such a purpose.

> Their rater helpfulness score must be at least 0.66 [1]

[0] https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch/blob/main/static/source...

[1] https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/contributor-scores/#vali...

Hi! Birdwatch ML Engineer here-- these context notes are from Birdwatch. They are written and rated by users, and the notes are only added as context to Tweets if they are rated highly enough by multiple raters who have tended to disagree in the past. The core algorithm is open source as well as all of the data, and there is lots of public documentation about it too:

https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/

https://twitter.com/birdwatch/status/1585794012052611076?s=2...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.15723.pdf

This is on point

> The goal of all this activity is not to debate, converse or exchange information. The goal is to win by being maximally controversial, as that's the behavior that is rewarded.

> the real issue: what gets amplified

But it can be (at least partially) fixed if you change the optimization function.

I advocate for that here: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/bridging-based-rank...

And Twitter's Birdwatch (that Elon recently got all excited about when ti fact checked the White House: https://twitter.com/metaviv/status/1587884806020415491) actually does this "bridging-based ranking" for adding context on tweets.

Here's the paper with details on how it works for Birdwatch: https://github.com/twitter/birdwatch/blob/main/birdwatch_pap... (you can also check out the source code in that repo).

The context bubble seems like a twitter feature via birdwatch. Found an example here.

Learn more here: https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/

Most of the time you can just replace twitter.com with nitter.net or nitter.it but when these instances are down or blocked you can use other instances listed here: https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Instances

But as the other commenter said Libredirect is the way to go: https://libredirect.github.io/

The LibRedirect extension can redirect Twitter links to Nitter, and redirects a bunch of other sites to better privacy-friendly alternatives.

You can use https://libredirect.github.io/ to automatically redirect to a Breezewiki instance, but I'm not sure if LibRedirect would interact with YGOWiki Redirector or Indie Wiki Buddy.

You can embed videos from an Invidious instance instead; on a video's page[1] there's an "embed video" link[2] you can use. The instance can be one hosted by you if you don't trust public ones, and you probably want to enable proxying by default if you don't want your clients to stream the video directly from Google's servers. You can also use a browser extension like libredirect[3] to automatically replace YouTube embeds with Invidious ones while browsing the web.

[1]: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=xzTH_ZqaFKI

[2]: https://yewtu.be/embed/xzTH_ZqaFKI

[3]: https://github.com/libredirect/browser_extension

As others mentioned: https://libredirect.github.io/