5 ms·

I just posted a link to latest Trump tweet, and got flagged. Don't understand why simply reporting something as relevant as what Trump tweeted is reason enough

I just posted a link to latest Trump tweet, and got flagged. Don't understand why simply reporting something as relevant as what Trump tweeted is reason enough to get flagged. when its directly relevant to this article, and what your president tweeted is news worthy. When your president retweets that 2.7 million votes where deleted during this election by dominion software. I think thats pretty relevant to this article. Shocking as that is. I made no claims of its validity. Just simply the source.

pwinnski 6y ago
Nothing from that twitter account is relevant on a site dedicated to increasing knowledge, as HN is.
- jungletime 6y ago
  If reposting Tumps (still your president) tweets is not allowed. Can I post the source behind his tweet. Its crazy to me that both "Let him present his evidence" and censoring when he does present his evidence, comes from the same side. I make no claims of validity, just relevance. https://noqreport.com/2020/11/11/data-deep-dive-on-dominion-voting-systems-offers-incontrovertible-proof-of-election-hack/ https://noqreport.com/2020/11/11/data-deep-dive-on-dominion-...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Can I post the source behind his tweet. Its clearly not relevant to this piece on the applicability of Benford's law. While I personally think its inappropriate for HN for a number of reasons, others might disagree and we have community moderation tools to resolve that disagreement, and it would at least be less inappropriate submitted as an independent story, rather than a comment on this one.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    First paragraph, second sentence: "...as we examine the work of a dedicated Trump-supporter who appears to have uncovered all of the proof necessary to dispel this myth that Joe Biden won the presidential election." This is nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing, and hiding being dispassionate "no claims" doesn't absolve you from posting obvious inflammatory garbage.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I just posted a link to latest Trump tweet, and got flagged. The tweet you was about an item of political controversy excessively well-covered in the mainstream media (making it generally off-topic even as an independent story for HN), and was not at all germane to the post about Benford's law that it was offered as a comment on (making it off-topic as a comment on that post.) There are venues in which linking that tweet might be appropriate, one can even imagine a hypothetical HN comment thread on which it might be on-topic. However, it wasn't on-topic where it was offered. > Don't understand why simply reporting something as relevant as what Trump tweeted is reason enough to get flagged. when its directly relevant to this article Trump's tweets -- well, this Trump tweet, I suppose its theoretically possibly he might sometime tweet something where this would not be true -- are completely irrelevant to the utility of Benford's law in detecting voting fraud. > and what your president tweeted is news worthy Conventional newsworthiness (because we have a conventional newsmedia) is generally tangential and often a negative to HN-relevance. > When your president retweets that 2.7 million votes where deleted during this election by dominion software. Were this a thread about Dominion software, or about the general incidence of electoral fraud, or about this particular election at all, there might be an argument that that was relevant. Its not, and its not. > I made no claims of its validity Even if the tweet were otherwise relevant, its validity, whether or not you make an explicit representation about it, is not irrelevant to the question of whether it should be upvoted, downvoted, flagged, or simply left unmoderated when presented here.
- jungletime 6y ago
  You claim is that its off topic. But how can it be off topic when Trumps tweet is about election fraud, and the title of post is also about election fraud. Both dominion and Branford's law use statistical results for proof where the overlap happens. This standard doesn't really get held up in other discussions on here, people mention tangentially relevant things on here all the time.

pwinnski 6y ago

Nothing from that twitter account is relevant on a site dedicated to increasing knowledge, as HN is.

jungletime 6y ago
If reposting Tumps (still your president) tweets is not allowed. Can I post the source behind his tweet. Its crazy to me that both "Let him present his evidence" and censoring when he does present his evidence, comes from the same side. I make no claims of validity, just relevance. https://noqreport.com/2020/11/11/data-deep-dive-on-dominion-voting-systems-offers-incontrovertible-proof-of-election-hack/ https://noqreport.com/2020/11/11/data-deep-dive-on-dominion-...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Can I post the source behind his tweet. Its clearly not relevant to this piece on the applicability of Benford's law. While I personally think its inappropriate for HN for a number of reasons, others might disagree and we have community moderation tools to resolve that disagreement, and it would at least be less inappropriate submitted as an independent story, rather than a comment on this one.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  First paragraph, second sentence: "...as we examine the work of a dedicated Trump-supporter who appears to have uncovered all of the proof necessary to dispel this myth that Joe Biden won the presidential election." This is nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing, and hiding being dispassionate "no claims" doesn't absolve you from posting obvious inflammatory garbage.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I just posted a link to latest Trump tweet, and got flagged. The tweet you was about an item of political controversy excessively well-covered in the mainstream media (making it generally off-topic even as an independent story for HN), and was not at all germane to the post about Benford's law that it was offered as a comment on (making it off-topic as a comment on that post.) There are venues in which linking that tweet might be appropriate, one can even imagine a hypothetical HN comment thread on which it might be on-topic. However, it wasn't on-topic where it was offered. > Don't understand why simply reporting something as relevant as what Trump tweeted is reason enough to get flagged. when its directly relevant to this article Trump's tweets -- well, this Trump tweet, I suppose its theoretically possibly he might sometime tweet something where this would not be true -- are completely irrelevant to the utility of Benford's law in detecting voting fraud. > and what your president tweeted is news worthy Conventional newsworthiness (because we have a conventional newsmedia) is generally tangential and often a negative to HN-relevance. > When your president retweets that 2.7 million votes where deleted during this election by dominion software. Were this a thread about Dominion software, or about the general incidence of electoral fraud, or about this particular election at all, there might be an argument that that was relevant. Its not, and its not. > I made no claims of its validity Even if the tweet were otherwise relevant, its validity, whether or not you make an explicit representation about it, is not irrelevant to the question of whether it should be upvoted, downvoted, flagged, or simply left unmoderated when presented here.

jungletime 6y ago
You claim is that its off topic. But how can it be off topic when Trumps tweet is about election fraud, and the title of post is also about election fraud. Both dominion and Branford's law use statistical results for proof where the overlap happens. This standard doesn't really get held up in other discussions on here, people mention tangentially relevant things on here all the time.