The Disinformation Governance Board may be taking its rightful place on the Garbage Heap of Garbage Ideas, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t still other powerful entities ready to take their place.

Where the federal government has failed (so far, anyway), Twitter hopes to succeed:

This is not a drill:

And who gets to decide what constitutes misinformation? Don’t worry: Twitter’s sought the advice of professionals, aka “global experts and human rights organizations”:

“Human rights organizations” like Human Rights Watch? Or maybe Amnesty International? Or how about the United Nations?

More from Twitter:

Teams at Twitter have worked to develop a crisis misinformation framework since last year, drawing on key input from global experts and human rights organizations. For the purposes of this policy, we define crises as situations in which there is a widespread threat to life, physical safety, health, or basic subsistence. This definition is consistent with the United Nations’ definition of a humanitarian crisis and other humanitarian assessments.

Consistent with the U.N.’s definitions. Well, then. That’s comforting.


During moments of crisis, establishing whether something is true or false can be exceptionally challenging. To determine whether claims are misleading, we require verification from multiple credible, publicly available sources, including evidence from conflict monitoring groups, humanitarian organizations, open-source investigators, journalists, and more.

So don’t expect to see as many tweets about Hamas murdering innocent Israeli citizens, for example, as many of the “conflict monitoring groups, humanitarian organizations, open-source investigators, journalists, and more” tend to be Palestinian terrorist apologists and defenders.

One more bit:

Content moderation is more than just leaving up or taking down content, and we’ve expanded the range of actions we may take to ensure they’re proportionate to the severity of the potential harm. We’ve found that not amplifying or recommending certain content, adding context through labels, and in severe cases, disabling engagement with the Tweets, are effective ways to mitigate harm, while still preserving speech and records of critical global events.

Yeah, this sounds fool-proof and flawless. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Seriously, they might as well just put Nina Jankowicz in charge of enforcing this policy. Because clearly Twitter just doesn’t give a crap about optics at this point.