Chapter 1: Introduction to Birdwatch

I discovered the pilot of Twitter's new crowdsourced misinformation labeling initiative much like I learn about many significant news events: through the enthusiastic discussions of Harry Styles fans on my timeline. Their reactions were consistent, with quotes like "larries better hide" and "it's over for larries," explicitly stating intentions to leverage this new feature against them.

Understanding this context is essential. The term "Larries" refers to a community of primarily former One Direction fans who are convinced that band members Louis Tomlinson and Harry Styles are secretly in love and married. This group has thrived on platforms like Tumblr and is now making a surprising comeback on Twitter and TikTok. However, they are often at odds with "Antis," who oppose the Larries, criticizing them for their delusions while also referencing their history of harassment against Tomlinson's family.

When Twitter announced the Birdwatch program at the end of January, it caught the Antis' attention. This initiative is not a conventional fact-checking program, as it does not utilize trained professionals. Instead, participants can flag tweets they deem "misleading," submit explanations—ideally linked to credible external sources—and assess the potential harm of the misinformation. Antis have made it clear they believe Larries pose "considerable harm."

This narrative serves not only to entertain but also highlights a significant challenge facing Birdwatch: the lack of incentive for most users to volunteer as fact-checkers. While dedicated fans, or "stans," might feel compelled to engage due to their investment in the truth about their favorite celebrities, it remains uncertain if others will share this motivation.

Twitter's previous efforts to combat misinformation began last year. In 2020, the platform trialed warning labels on tweets containing misleading claims, primarily regarding COVID-19 and the presidential election. However, these measures lacked clarity and consistency.

Meanwhile, Keith Coleman, Twitter's vice president of product, was developing Birdwatch—an approach that could prove more effective and transparent. The goal was to distribute the responsibility of identifying misinformation among Twitter's user base, allowing them to react more swiftly than automated systems. This initiative could foster trust among users who may be skeptical of a tech company's overt influence on public discourse. Coleman believed that many users might appreciate a grassroots approach rather than top-down directives from a single institution.

Birdwatch was designed to be particularly transparent. Users can examine its ranking algorithm, which categorizes notes as "helpful" or "unhelpful," and download all submitted notes. While Coleman acknowledged the varying quality of these notes, he expressed confidence that the algorithm could elevate those that represent a "diverse consensus"—an agreement among individuals with differing viewpoints. Regular contributors who provide high-quality notes could earn a positive reputation score, impacting the weight of their future submissions.

As part of my exploration into this initiative, I reviewed approximately 3,000 notes submitted to Birdwatch. These included Antis’ claims that certain tweets "perpetuate a conspiracy theory" and "claim a relationship that is false," alongside defenses of other public figures from unfounded rumors. The notes ranged from personal grievances to broader societal discussions, such as the ongoing feud between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz.

One notable observation was the tendency for users to focus on personal attacks rather than broader truths. While the Antis and other groups may attempt to exploit the Birdwatch system to target their adversaries, their notes are unlikely to gain traction due to their niche concerns, which may not resonate with the wider Twitter community.

At the program's launch, reactions were mixed. Some saw it as a step forward in empowering users, while others worried about the implications of letting Twitter users dictate "truth." Savvas Zannettou, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics, voiced concerns that the system could be misused and manipulated, particularly by organized groups. However, he remained cautiously optimistic, citing examples of successful crowdsourced efforts like Wikipedia.

Coleman expressed hope that Birdwatch participants would be driven by a desire to enhance the quality of information shared on the platform. Yet, it is challenging to envision Twitter users—who often jest about the platform's adverse effects on their lives—unifying for a shared mission of promoting reliable information.

Research suggests that online communities thrive when participants feel a sense of belonging and can engage in meaningful collaboration. In contrast, Twitter primarily operates as a for-profit entity, often described as a "data-mining operation." Users typically prioritize self-promotion and divisive issues over collective efforts to improve information accuracy.

Birdwatch's initial phase saw limited engagement, with only 3,300 notes submitted by 1,000 participants in the first three weeks. For the initiative to be effective against widespread misinformation, Twitter must inspire a more substantial commitment from its user base. This will require a significant cultural shift within the platform—transitioning from a competitive environment to one focused on shared goals.

The internet is inherently personal, and the primary challenge for Birdwatch is that many users may only engage with content that resonates with their interests. Without compelling reasons to broaden their focus, the ongoing conflict between Antis and Larries is likely to persist, and they will continue to experiment with Birdwatch to see if it can serve their purposes.

Kaitlyn Tiffany is a staff writer at The Atlantic, focusing on technology.

Chapter 2: The Future of Birdwatch

In this discussion, Tom Leung, a podcaster, emphasizes the importance of civic engagement through voting, volunteering, and fact-checking to counter misinformation and promote a healthier digital discourse.