31 ms·
Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
- hhs 6y agoCurious what the process was in designing that warning. How did they A/B test this? How did they experiment with different fonts, colors, and spaces?
- nojito 6y agoLooks like they tested it earlier this year. The demo was a bright orange notice. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-testing-new-ways-fight-misinformation-including-community-based-points-n1139931 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-testing-new-w...
- hhs 6y agoThis is neat, thanks. It’s interesting that in the article they write: “A leaked demo features bright red and orange badges for tweets that are deemed "harmfully misleading."” But currently, they didn’t use that approach. Right now the warning tag is an exclamation point circled badge with blue text.
- Barrin92 6y agoIf we're honest a lot of his tweets violate twitters content policy and they do so blatantly. I wonder if they'll ever have the guts to straight up hand him at least a temp ban.
- seph-reed 6y agoWhy wouldn't you? Life is way too short to pass up on the opportunity to ban a president. The lulz would last centuries.
- ipsum2 6y agoShareholder responsibilities. I would guess that a good chunk of Twitter users are there to read and interact with the president's tweets.
- viraptor 6y agoWhat do you mean "interact"? He virtually never posts any responses, the account is close to broadcast-only. There's also no real interaction in the replies: even if you manage to scroll past the kneejerk responses and product spam thriving on controversy, what are the chances you'll find anyone to actually interact with?
- foogazi 6y agoBy “interact with the tweets” I see as fwd, replies, sharing How much digital ink is spent on exhaust from his tweets?
- thomascgalvin 6y agoHe retweets racist nonsense constantly. If you want to add "re-tweeted by the President of the United States" to your resume, you just have to keep @-tagging him with conspiracy theories about Biden, and there's a decent chance he'll take the bait.
- smt88 6y agoI don't know that the users are directly there to interact with the pres, but Twitter certainly benefits from being the US President's megaphone. They get mentioned in the news hundreds of times a day, and they're "the" platform for all celebs posting their thoughts. If POTUS moves to, say, Facebook, they lose all that free advertising.
- seph-reed 6y ago> Shareholder responsibilities There's nothing I'd rather say on my deathbed than "I was really good for the shareholders." Seriously, life is too short. Ban the president. Go down in history. Be someone. Jack or whoever will die being nothing more than a low-tier mascot for the long dead American dream. But banning the president... it would be very literally epic. What I really want to say on my deathbed is "I lived a great story," so IMO it's a no brainer.
- daenz 6y agoJack Dorsey has spoken about this on Joe Rogan's podcast, and he basically says that it was a judgement call where they weighed the public interest in the tweets against the violations of the tweets. EDIT>> I dug up the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K571_jqnCpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K571_jqnCpM
- austincheney 6y agoDid Dorsey clarify what he meant by public interests? That sounds like a vague distraction.
- colinmorelli 6y agoI think "preserving the words of the president" probably fits pretty squarely in the realm of public interest, even if they're blatantly false.
- jeffbee 6y agoGiving him a platform in the first place is what necessitates the consequent fact checking. If they didn't distribute his lies they wouldn't need to contradict them. Many media outlets have stopped airing Trump's statements live, because doing so is essentially unethical.
- wwright 6y agoRemoving it from the normal tweet status is separate from preserving them. They could archive them and disable replies, retweets, quotes, and so on. They could remove it from feeds. They could frame it differently.
- groby_b 6y agoNot really, no. That's the WH's obligation, not Twitter's. Jack Dorsey's public interest is increasing engagement and making money. That's it.
- inimino 6y agoEspecially if, I would say.
- gkoberger 6y agoI understand this route. The President of the United States already has a gigantic platform, so it's not like he'll just go away like @nero did. This gives Twitter a chance to annotate his hate with facts, and hopefully reach his audience. Banning him just makes him a martyr, without lessening his reach. I do wish the UI was a bit... angrier. The friendly light blue doesn't exactly scream "misinformation!" But as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Removing him from Twitter won't make him or his base any less hateful. It's a constant reminder that he needs to be removed. I think if Twitter and news organizations just started ignoring him, many people would forget how horrible he is.
- acbart 6y agoI disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Didn't the Reddit folks discover that shutting down hateful subreddits prevents them from popping back up effectively? I believe this is the citation[1]. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
- gkoberger 6y agoYeah but... this is the President of the United States we're talking about, not a random Reddit user. He's already been raised up and legitimized. I don't think that study applies... in fact, I don't think any study applies, since this is the first time we've ever seen this.
- jobigoud 6y agoOn the other hand, this is his personal account @realDonaldTrump, not the official @POTUS that he decided he was above of.
- iateanapple 6y ago> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them Despite huge deplatforming efforts over the last decade fringe views have grown to become mainstream and there is less trust between people than ever.
- 2019-nCoV 6y agoIt wouldn't take guts, just a pinch more of that insular Silicon Valley naïveté the rest of American has grown to despise. Considering Trump is up against https://joebiden.info https://joebiden.info, banning him would all but guarantee a tumultuous future for Twitter.
- smitty1e 6y agoTrump short-circuits the media gatekeepers using Twitter. But the relationship is symbiotic. While Trump loves him some free platform, he's a big traffic draw. So, if Twitter wants to be too uppity, Trump could, for example shift operations to Gab. I submit that a key point here is THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER to the policy question. If one engages in social media, one's feelings will be hurt. This is no blank check to be a dick. Criticisms of Trump cheapening the office are trivially shown correct. Vote accordingly this November.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- happytoexplain 6y agoWhy don't you care about letting Trump slide, but you do care about letting anti-white racists slide?
- guevara 6y agoI find his Tweets entertaining and I get a good laugh out of them. As for the anti-white thing, I'm just making an observation about something I found interesting. I legitimately want to know what's up with Twitter allowing these comments. I find it weird cause it'd go without saying that hating any other minority would land you a ban or suspension.
- IAmEveryone 6y agoI have no idea what you're trying to prove. In any case: anti-white racism isn't the same as standard-issue anti-black racism. Racism is more than some people not liking your particular skin color on Twitter. Being black means every police encounter is potentially lethal––see today's news, or that jogger two weeks ago for recent examples. People call the cops when you're birding in Central Park, and unless you're lucky and have a recording, they aren't going to believe you. If, perchance, some virus starts going around, you'll find the hospitals in predominantly black neighbourhoods have less staff and equipment, and the 30% black people in your city make up 60% of the dead (Chicago, Detroit). In other words: it's systematic, and about power. That stuff on Twitter is stupid, but it isn't equivalent.
- occasionopinion 6y agoAnti-black racism is obviously worse than anti-white racism. No rational person would argue that they're equivalent. That does not mean that anti-white racism should be acceptable. It's a pretty simple concept.
- 6y ago
- jerkstate 6y agoIt seems like Trump is making a prediction rather than stating a fact, very very strange use of the phrase "fact-checking" by Twitter
- baddox 6y agoBaseless speculation about the integrity of US national elections is a perfectly reasonable thing to fact-check and tag as misleading.
- jerkstate 6y agoI'm glad at least you agree that his tweet is speculation.
- baddox 6y agoThe real world doesn't work like children playing word games at recess. "It was technically just a prediction because I was talking about the future and therefore it's impossible to make any judgements about what I said" just doesn't play in the real world.
- odkamkfn 6y agoI'm glad we finally found a company to tell us what's true - no bias, no spin, just the facts! Thanks, twitter, you've saved the world!!!!
- disposekinetics 6y agoWho asked for twitter to be our fact checker? I don't want any tech company fact checking for me.
- pedroma 6y agoWhoosh
- disposekinetics 6y agoIt's simply not something I want as part of my feed. Be it a politician I loathe or tolerate.
- sixstringtheory 6y agoIt is a link called "get the facts." It says nothing about the veracity of the statement besides which it appears. Why are you against people becoming more educated?
- odkamkfn 6y agoI'm not against people becoming more educated - I have 100% faith in twitter's superiority. I know that the talented and, frankly, superior human beings over at twitter are the best people in the world to educate the ignorant public.
- sixstringtheory 6y agoEvery little bit helps. Lots of people out there are ignorant about lots of things. Doesn't mean they're bad, doesn't mean they can't learn, but the thing is there, someone has to show them.
- slg 6y ago>The move comes on the heels of Twitter's decision not to remove comment President Trump made about the death of Lori Klausutis in 2001. The president has tweeted several messages promoting a conspiracy theory that Ms Klausutis was murdered by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough. I would be very curious to hear an explanation of this decision. Why do Tweets about mail in ballots receive a warning but tweets accusing a journalist of murder don't?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Rebelgecko 6y agoI don't think he actually accused a journalist of murder. He used CYA language like "the investigation ought to be reopened". The implication is obvious, but I think that keeps him out of libelous territory. Of course Twitter can have more strict standards if they want, but so far they've chosen not to.
- throwaway122378 6y agoLeft leaning media is going way too far with their grasp of any news narrative. Mail in voting is susceptible to fraud- that’s the truth regardless of your political affiliation. Ballots can be filled out by someone other than the voter, votes can be lost in the mail, and even stuffed by those trusted to oversee the process like in extreme cases in Philadelphia last week: https://www.inquirer.com/news/voter-fraud-philadelphia-ward-leader-judge-of-elections-domenick-demuro-guilty-plea-20200521.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/voter-fraud-philadelphia-ward-...
- kasey_junk 6y agoThat story is literally about someone hitting a voting machine over and over in person. Bad troll is bad.
- jerkstate 6y ago> In May 2014, DeMuro inflated vote totals by adding 27 fraudulent ballots in the primary election, 40 votes in May 2015, and 46 in 2016, according to court documents outlining the scheme and the charges against him. > While those numbers may seem small, prosecutors said, they made up a significant percentage of the total votes cast at the polling place. In 2014, 118 total ballots were reported there, which means that DeMuro’s fraudulent votes accounted for over 22% of the total voting in that division in 2014. In 2015, his fraud accounted for over 15% of the votes in the division; in 2016, his fraud accounted for over 17% of the votes. DeMuro is an election official, not "someone"
- RobAtticus 6y agoYes but the topic is mail-in voting fraud. He was physically at the polling place and stuffing the box. It's fraud and should be punished, but it has nothing to do with mail-in voting fraud.
- CapricornNoble 6y agoThe example is a demonstration that a member of the opposition party to the incumbent President was both willing and able to commit election fraud for even a paltry sum of money in a local election. The implication is that election officials from that party cannot be trusted to NOT fraudulently influence the election. If they are willing & able to exploit System A, then they are probably WILLING to exploit System B, and it's likely they are ABLE to exploit System B because its security sucks. Basic risk management principles would lead to implementing controls to either reduce the probability of the risk, or reduce the effective impact of the risk. The US has been stuck doing neither since the Bush/Gore election.
- root_axis 6y agoSeems like this policy will be difficult to scale... Who is taking odds on Trump threatening a DOJ investigation before the week is over?
- dbbk 6y agoThere is no crime the DOJ can justify investigating...
- Zecar 6y agoIn-kind political donations that are not properly recorded and reported by Twitter as it makes moves to benefit the DNC.
- root_axis 6y agoWell, it remains to be seen if that actually matters. Let's hope it still does. https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/after-twitter-fact-check-trump-threatens-to-regulate-or-close-down-social-media-platforms/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/after-twitter-fact-check-t...
- no_carrier 6y agoI don't follow Trump on Twitter but go and look up his feed regularly by Googling 'donald trump twitter'. I always get there by the first result. This morning? He doesn't seem to be on the front page at all... the first result is for a search done on twitter.con for 'donald trump twitter', the next result is for the POTUS account. I would say this fact checking thing has had a knock on effect to search results.
- runawaybottle 6y agoIf Covid second wave happens in November, large scale mail in ballot efforts could lead to the biggest voter turn out in American history.
- baddox 6y agoAnd if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult to predict.)
- umvi 6y agoIsn't too much voter turnout bad though? Do we really want every poor ignorant impoverished (or rich) American voting? Or just the people that take democracy seriously and vote after having puzzled it out? If you reduce the friction too much (or even force people to vote) you'll get a lot of voting based on who promised the most goodies/handouts or emotional appeal rather than rational reasoning.
- lreeves 6y agoThere are quite a few countries with compulsory voting (1) and it seems to work; it'd make more sense to bolster education than to gatekeep voting to "good" education which slowly over time in the US has moved to private, expensive schools. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
- viraptor 6y ago> every poor ignorant impoverished There's some serious bias here. There are poor and impoverished people who are not ignorant. There are also ignorant millionaires. The moment you start saying who shouldn't be voting, make sure you realise how many people think you shouldn't be voting either. At an extreme of that, see what the threshold of "rich" is for people saying "eat the rich".
- umvi 6y ago
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y agoHow would one actually implement a high integrity fact-checking service?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jamiesonbecker 6y agoSorry, what's a fact?
- asdff 6y agoInterns.
- Recurecur 6y agoHere's my vote for the best way: - Crowd sourced - If 80%+ agreement it's true or false, report it as such with top sources provided - If less than 80%, report it as "controversial leaning (strongly)..." with sources provided, inviting actual research In the US, the question of mail voting encouraging fraudulence would get far less than a 80% consensus.
- godelski 6y agoI think one of the issues with this will be how it is linking the correct information. I like the little inclusion before tweets, but there's no sources on them. Then when you scroll down on the tweets I see them in this order: The Hill, WaPo, CNN, a CBS News reporter, a Fortune Magazine reporter, a Vox reporter, Sr Political Reporter for Huffington, ACLU Nebraska, a CNN political correspondent. The issue here is that everything here is considered in the hard left of the media. I'm concerned that this will only help grow the divide between Americans, though I also don't have a better alternative to this. Clearly there is a lack of coverage of this from the right and in fact the opposite. A quick DDG search of "fox news mail in ballot" pulls up [0][1][2]. So when you see things like this I think it is easier to say that "the left" is trying to trick you. If Fox is your primary source of news, then it does look like Twitter is trying to silence a real issue. If Fox isn't your primary source of news then it looks like Twitter is trying to fight misinformation. Things are so crazy that it really is hard to find the truth and there is very good reason to believe that someone is lying. And no one wants to admit that someone they've trusted for a long time is lying to them, especially when there's nuggets of truth that you can hold onto. So I'm a little worried about the repercussions of this, especially since the right already thinks Twitter is supporting the left. Edit: By hard left I mean from the perspective of Fox viewers. My main point is about the perspective of the people this is specifically aimed at. While on the left we don't see it that way go talk to your friends on the right, they see it differently. My concern is because we need to unify and not divide. [0] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-of-ballots-stacked-outside-home https://www.foxnews.com/politics/voter-fraud-california-man-... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-carolina-election-ballots-reportedly-found-in-maryland-this-week https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-carolina-election-bal... [2] https://video.foxnews.com/v/6158607323001#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6158607323001#sp=show-clips
- trophycase 6y agoNone of those news outlets you mentioned are "hard left". They are corporatist status quo. They are all in support of Joe Biden who is hardly "left" at all
- 6y ago
- sj4nz 6y agoTwitter could possibly fund itself for a long time if they hosted a pay-per-view event of the moment they lock and disable that account for policy violations. It could be the most profitable 5-minutes of pay-per-view streaming in history and also simultaneously the most amazing test of Internet resiliency, ever.
- dbbk 6y agoWhat are you talking about? A live stream of the Twitter admin UI pressing the "ban account" button? I don't think you've thought this through.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoTrump is currently tweeting about how this warning message is taking away his 1st amendment rights to free speech, and constitutes interference in the 2020 election. Can't wait for these tweets to get the same warning. [1]:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265427538140188676 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12654275381401886...
- zozbot234 6y ago> is taking away his 1st amendment rights to free speech Does he have to be on Twitter? I mean, if Hillary can set up a mail server, surely Donald can host a Mastodon instance.
- jedieaston 6y agoOr shoot, get a dev team together to write a microblogging platform hosted at whitehouse.gov. Then they could even write a client that was secure enough to run on the president’s cell phone, and they don’t have to worry about third-party interests (if they exist). Just have whatever is posted on that site mirrored to @POTUS on Twitter, and if that get suspended, then the primary source still exists.
- CapricornNoble 6y agoYeah, this administration failing to move the conversation/information dissemination to government-run platforms is mindblowing to me. Setup a Syncloud node and have the President tell everyone to follow him on Diaspora. Get high-profile supporters (Kanye) to parrot the message and also cross-post their content. Trump has incredible reach and influence as a social media personality (witness HK protesters carrying Trump/Rocky meme images), but he is failing himself by staying beholden to obviously-hostile private platforms. Remember when the press wanted to stop the President's daily briefings?[1] He should have used that opportunity to setup a podcast or video stream system, minus the press, who are 90% bad faith actors anyway. "America, hear what I have to say, unfiltered by the talking heads at CNN! Just download the WhiteHouseNews app!" etc.... [1]https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/washington-post-publishes-call-for-end-to-live-broadcasts-of-trumps-coronavirus-briefings-as-four-new-polls-show-majority-approval-for-presidents-handling-of-crisis/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/washington-post-pub...
- blhack 6y agoI'm finding the response people are having to this mail in voting thing to be...puzzling. It's not a ridiculous thing to wonder about how susceptible mail in voting is to fraud, and it seems like some of us are putting blinders on simply due to our distaste for the current president. If we were to hold a hackathon with a $100,000 prize for the most plausible path to exploit mail in voting in order to swing an election, are people implying that there would be no entries? Or maybe no viable entries? That's ridiculous. Here's some spitballing: (eh, I removed this. I don't think brainstorming how to committ election fraud is a good idea. I'm assuming that readers of hacker news can probably figure out some relatively obvious ways of casting doubt into the outcome of a mail in election) How are people looking at what recently happened with 100s of millions of dollars of fraud being committed against various US unemployment systems, and not thinking that other systems might be at risk as well? Remember the Iowa caucus? That was a hastily put together vote reporting system, not even meant for tallying, and look at what a disaster it was. Now we're expecting that states will radically alter their voting system, in 5 months, and that it won't be vulnerable to interference? To be clear: I LIKE mail in voting. I have permanent mail in voting status in my state (Arizona), and my wife and I usually get breakfast at our favorite restaurant and spend HOURS meticulously researching every candidate and BI on the form. Being able to take that amount of time is fantastic, and a luxury I wish everybody could have. But it doesn't have to be so polar. I like mail in voting, obviously, but I'm not so stupid as to think that it cannot possibly be criticized. I am a hacker after all. Boo to twitter for this. This is twitter obviously putting their finger on the scale of an election, and after all of the drama surrounding the idea that foreign actors might have purchased a few 10s of thousands of dollars of facebook ads, I'd hope that Americans would have a distrust a company where foreign entities have a major stake doing such a thing. Not acceptable in my opinion. Just to highlight my point a little further: here is an article from the nytimes highlighting that mail in voting is far more vulnerable to fraud than in person voting: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-... Here’s a quote from the article: >Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. and another: > Election experts say the challenges created by mailed ballots could well affect outcomes this fall and beyond. And another: > The trend will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud. While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting So who is to be believed here? Twitter? The New York Times? Why aren’t the experts from this article being listened to?
- jswizzy 6y agoIt's hard to tell Twitter policy from that of the CCP.
- hadrien01 6y agoThe warning links to this page: https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 It's a sort of article (I didn't know Twitter had this type of format, I really like it, weirdly enough) that contains an introduction text and a 'What you need to know' paragraph, followed by fact-checking tweets from press organizations. I know where the tweets come from, but who has written the introduction and summary paragraphs, and who has compiled those tweets and photos in that order?
- aspenmayer 6y agoHere’s the Twitter trends FAQ, which is where I would expect the answers to your questions to be found, yet there’s not much info on this page. Basically they say trends are determined by an algorithm, but that there are also humans in the loop. https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-trending-faqs https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-trending-f...
- piotrkaminski 6y agoAccording to Ars Technica [1], this page is "created and managed by our global curation team". [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/twitters-first-fact-check-on-president-trump-calls-out-false-claims/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/twitters-first-f...
- dbbk 6y agoTo be specific it's a Twitter Moment
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 6y agoThis what a 2012 New York Times article[1] said about mail-in ballots: >Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting. I'm sorry, but that so-called "fact checking" looks like a classic case of "Trump said something is bad, so we must defend that thing at all costs". [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 2019-nCoV 6y agoThis is not going to end well. Every single aspect of life that cannot be rigorously tested under the scientific method is destined to become a partisan topic. There is no way to be sure if mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
- canada_dry 6y ago> Every single aspect of life that cannot be rigorously tested under the scientific method is destined to become a partisan topic. Remind me again how rigorously testing under a scientific method has quelled any misinformation these days??
- 2019-nCoV 6y agoDo you have a contrary example?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fzeroracer 6y agoConsidering mail-in voting has been put through the ringer in multiple states (both red and blue!) with very little voter fraud statistically, it seems like these days the partisan topics consist of reality vs Trump. This is something that's been statistically proven to work and yet the amount of people I see leaping to his very ignorant claims of this topic here is disappointing. Can you back up the claims that mail-in ballots will be substantially fraudulent at any level beyond baseless speculation?
- 2019-nCoV 6y agoHas there been a more polarising American politician than Trump in living memory? Voter fraud is not a constant. It is completely dynamic. Just his Tweet completely changes reality. Now, if it does proceed, we'll see increased scrutiny of mail-in voting, which in turn would reduce fraud. This would then be cited by opponents as another counter-example, when in reality the increased scrutiny was the catalyst.
- User23 6y agoBefore I clicked on the link, I assumed this was yet another egregious lie. But this one really doesn't qualify. It falls squarely in the category of reasonable opinions. Let's look at the claim: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". Clearly the veracity of the statement rests on the word "substantially." It's inconceivable that no one ever takes, for example, an elderly relative's mail in ballot and votes it fraudulently. So for this to be a reasonable opinion, it merely has to be reasonably possible for the claim to be true. So, let's consider if such fraud could possibly be substantial. Let's use California as an example. Registering to vote is easy, all you need is a web browser[1] and a mailing address where you reside or with a resident willing to give you ballots or ignorant that they are receiving them[2]. Also, the State of California faces an impractically large legal hurdle to reject suspected fraudulent ballots[3] so it can be assumed that most if not all will be accepted. It seems clear based on the observable facts that substantial fraud is certainly possible under the California regime. Please note I am not claiming such fraud actually happens, merely that it is easily practicable for an organization as well organized as, say, a political party. To be honest, I bet literally hundreds if not thousands of readers on this site could build "California vote fraud as as service" as a side gig. Let's disrupt the electoral process for a billion dollar valuation! From this I conclude that while I personally disagree with the President, this particular statement is a (probably, I sure hope) incorrect opinion, not a factually incorrect statement. [1] https://covr.sos.ca.gov/ https://covr.sos.ca.gov/ [2] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/more-than-80-ballots-sent-to-san-pedro-apartment/106443/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/more-than-80-bal... [3] https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article203746944.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
- occasionopinion 6y agoIt's not an opinion, it's a statement. Therein lies the rub. There is no reasonable interpretation of "There is NO WAY (ZERO!)" to mean "there may possibly be". e: The President just helpfully tweeted out in support of my argument: "They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect"
- Balgair 6y agoIt's a strange decision by Twitter here, but they are in a strange position. Donny, love him or hate him, does say a fair few things that are ... questionable. Jack has talked about this a bit, and their conclusion thus far has been that anything he says, by virtue of the office, is newsworthy enough. Policies for thee, but not for he. It's been a battle with users, but everyone seems to just grumble along. That policy has worked up until today. A lot of work went into this decision. They A/B tested the color of the note, likely the font, the positioning, the exact words, the fact check itself, etc. This thing went through meeting after meeting and was run past some good legal counsel. Twitter isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's also not a rusty shovel. They red-teamed this a fair bit, I'd imagine. They must have known that Donny would not view it favorably and would do exactly what he is doing currently. All the same they went ahead and decided to make the move at the end of May, ~6 months before the 'fit hits the shan'. Why? Their stock is, well, fairly ok. Jack seems to be doing alright. Monthly users are flat-ish since 2015, but compared to FB, it's a bit of a wash.
- ykevinator 6y agoThe Republicans can make their own twitter
- quxbar 6y agoI don't know why all these expert voting frauds don't just take up regular mail fraud?
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago> Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post.... > ....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen! Whelp, it was fun while it lasted. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265427538140188676 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12654275381401886...
- Fjolsvith 6y agoTwitter would just shit themselves if Trump set up a Mastadon server and moved there.
- techntoke 6y agoI think they'd be happy, dems would be happy and repubs would be happy. Let's make it happen.
- rurban 6y agoLol. He often twitters nonsense, but in this case Twitter itself is spreading false information. Of course mail ballots are totally insecure, esp. for nation state actors. Looks like Twitter joined collaboration with the CIA now, who is the relevant nation state actor in this case. There are multiple documented cases. Same for his Hydroxychloriquine argument, which he promoted as good prevention (which is good information with scientific studies proving it), and this was labeled as false and dangerous information. Probably because Chloroquine phosphat is somewhat dangerous (different drug), and it has no proven treatment effects. Please fact check the fact check warnings, and beware of dependent media.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- __s 6y agoI'd just like to commend Twitter for going the route I suggested YouTube take https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266238 No need to censor, only offer a second opinion
- blockmarker 6y agoI am glad that unelected corporations are protecting us from the opinions of elected officials.
- anonymouswacker 6y agoTwitter deserves our respect for stepping out of their lane (marketing/advertising) to ensure that all information on their website is 100% scientifically accurate. Thank you, selfless heroes!
- im3w1l 6y agoMore and more it seems to be devolving into: Someone: I don't trust the establishment Establishment fact checker: FALSE. The establishment is perfectly trustworthy. Maybe we need to start talking about The Right to be Suspicious or something.
- Simulacra 6y agoSocial media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
- CawCawCaw 6y agoSo they finally did something about his endless lies after four years. Well, well.
- Simulacra 6y agoIf Twitter is going to do this to one they must do it to all. If not then they are not being a neutral platform.
- Simulacra 6y agoIf Twitter is going to enact this policy to one entity they must do it to all. If not then they are not being a neutral platform.