4 ms·

I saw the same thing. He says Democrats won't vote in California because they know they are going to win, and Democrats don't vote in Texas because they know th

I saw the same thing. He says Democrats won't vote in California because they know they are going to win, and Democrats don't vote in Texas because they know they are going to lose. I think it would apply equally to both parties. I was surprised to see this article on HN, since most other statistical election fraud analyses I have seen are being dismissed as conspiracy theories. Facebook even censored one of them. I'm glad to see they are getting some serious consideration.

threeseed 6y ago
The issue is that the US has not officially selected a President yet. So Facebook, Twitter etc are being prudent and not allowing misinformation until that is the case. And I've yet to see any fraud analysis that is coming from reputable sources i.e. not Gateway Pundit or 4chan so it makes sense to err on the side of caution.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > So Facebook, Twitter etc are being prudent and not allowing misinformation Do these censors have the means to determine what is and is not "misinformation"? Do we have comprehensive insight into to what volume and types of censorship are (or are not) happening behind closed doors at the various social media companies? > And I've yet to see any fraud analysis that is coming from reputable sources i.e. not Gateway Pundit or 4chan Do we have comprehensive insight into to what volume and types of censorship are (or are not) happening behind closed doors at the various social media companies?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Facebook's process is pretty transparent and clear. They rely on independent fact checkers e.g. AP to determine what is true or not. And they regularly publish on the volumes and types of content they are removing: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-september-report/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inaut... Twitter is definitely less transparent but also less severe since they don't have the concepts of Pages or Groups.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

threeseed 6y ago

The issue is that the US has not officially selected a President yet. So Facebook, Twitter etc are being prudent and not allowing misinformation until that is the case. And I've yet to see any fraud analysis that is coming from reputable sources i.e. not Gateway Pundit or 4chan so it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

mistermann 6y ago
> So Facebook, Twitter etc are being prudent and not allowing misinformation Do these censors have the means to determine what is and is not "misinformation"? Do we have comprehensive insight into to what volume and types of censorship are (or are not) happening behind closed doors at the various social media companies? > And I've yet to see any fraud analysis that is coming from reputable sources i.e. not Gateway Pundit or 4chan Do we have comprehensive insight into to what volume and types of censorship are (or are not) happening behind closed doors at the various social media companies?
- threeseed 6y ago
  Facebook's process is pretty transparent and clear. They rely on independent fact checkers e.g. AP to determine what is true or not. And they regularly publish on the volumes and types of content they are removing: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-september-report/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inaut... Twitter is definitely less transparent but also less severe since they don't have the concepts of Pages or Groups.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]