FAQs

Who is eligible to participate in the Birdwatch pilot? Is there an approval process?

People in the US can sign up to become contributors in the pilot. Accounts must meet a few criteria to be eligible. Learn more here.

In addition, a small, randomized group of people in the US may see Helpful notes on Tweets, in order to help assess their quality.

In addition to people who have signed up to become Birdwatch contributors, small test groups in the US may see Helpful notes on on Tweets, in order to help assess their quality.

Are contributions anonymous? Or will my name be attached to my notes?

We want everyone to feel comfortable contributing to Birdwatch. Because of that, all contributors get a new, auto-generated display name (or alias) when they join Birdwatch. These aliases are not publicly associated with contributors’ Twitter accounts, so everyone can write and rate notes privately.

You can learn more about aliases here.

What Tweets are eligible to be annotated in Birdwatch?

Any Tweet can receive a Birdwatch note.

Will Birdwatch contributions affect content on Twitter? Will it be used to label or remove Tweets?

Birdwatch notes that have been rated helpful by enough contributors from different points of view will appear directly on Tweets for a small, randomized group of people in the US. They will also be able to rate notes for helpfulness. Beyond that, Birdwatch notes do not affect display of Tweets or enforcement of Twitter Rules. Our focus during this phase of the pilot is gaining confidence that Birdwatch produces context people from different points of view find helpful and informative.

Will this eventually replace Twitter’s existing misleading information interventions?

No. We believe there’s no single blanket tool or intervention that can solve the problem of misleading information on the internet. During this pilot, we aim to learn how Birdwatch may complement our existing efforts.

Why does Birdwatch allow anyone to write notes, rather than just experts?

We believe regular people can valuably contribute to identifying and adding helpful context to potentially misleading information. Many of the internet’s existing collaborative sites thrive with the help of non-expert contributions — Wikipedia, for example — and, while it’s not a cure-all, research has shown the potential of incorporating crowdsourced based approaches as part of a broader toolkit to address misleading information on the internet, for example:

In our pilot test of Birdwatch, we evaluated notes that Birdwatch would show on Tweets, and have found:

The majority of people surveyed on Twitter found Birdwatch notes helpful
People in surveys were 20-40% less likely to agree with the substance of a potentially misleading Tweet after reading the note about it, compared to those who saw a Tweet without a note
Most notes have been rated highly on accuracy by professional reviewers; it has been rare to find a note that reviewers agree is inaccurate

The people on Twitter span a wide gamut of backgrounds and experiences, and we believe that, working together, they can help create a better-informed world.

The people on Twitter span a wide gamut of backgrounds and experiences, and we look forward to everyone being able to contribute to this challenge.

Will researchers and others outside of Twitter be able to download and analyze the data?

All Birdwatch contributions data are made publicly available on the Download Data page of the Birdwatch site so that anyone in the US has free access to analyze the data, identify problems, and spot opportunities to make Birdwatch better. You can learn more about our data here.

Is Twitter working with any outside organizations to build this product?

A wealth of relevant knowledge exists beyond Twitter’s virtual walls, so we are drawing on external research and collaborating with a variety of groups and organizations for their expertise and input. In building Birdwatch, we’ve drawn on input from academic advisors whose expertise includes crowdsourcing, online juries, political science, polarization and more. Their input has helped us shape what Birdwatch is today, and will going forward. We’re also collaborating with AP and Reuters as part of our analysis of the helpfulness & quality of information elevated by Birdwatch.

There’s a Birdwatch note on one of my Tweets. What does that mean?

Tweet authors with Birdwatch notes on their Tweets can request additional review or report notes. Learn more.

Can people be removed from the Birdwatch program? What if someone is writing harmful content in their notes?

All contributors and all Birdwatch contributions are subject to the Twitter Rules. Failure to abide by the rules can result in removal from the Birdwatch pilot, and/or other remediations.

If you believe a note may have violated the Twitter Rules, you can report it by clicking or tapping the ••• menu on a note, and then selecting “Report”, or by using this form.

How will attempts to abuse or manipulate Birdwatch be prevented?

Birdwatch will only be successful if the context it produces is found to be helpful and appropriate by a wide range of people with diverse views. This obviously won’t be true if it can be taken over by a single group or ideology, or used in an abusive manner. We’re going to be very focused on achieving that during the pilot. We believe this is possible, and will be experimenting with different mechanics and incentives than Twitter to help make it happen. Learn more about how we are approaching these issues here.

How do I opt-out of the pilot?

If you join the pilot but later want to leave, just DM @birdwatch to let the team know.

Have more questions? Feel free to Tweet or message our team @birdwatch