Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

Post by heurist » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #412

avsteele wrote: post #148

The problem Twitter is going to face has nothing to do with Trump. By doing 'fact checking' like this they they open themselves up to the charge that anything that doesn't have the little (!) meets some standard. Expect 10x more people @jack, @twittersupport etc... every time they see something they find misleading. This is a bad move.

Written above “utterly unsustainable”. I can see no long term win here, esp when the arbiter they chose clearly has his own issues.

Post by metrokoi » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

ascagnel_ wrote: post #377

node-bayarea wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is the President of the United States! And 50% of the people like his policies (if not his personal behavior)

Only a little under 25% of the US affirmatively voted for him in the 2016 election (a little over 25% voted for his opponent, and roughly 50% chose to not vote at all). Included in that 25% would be people who either voted against his opponent, or voted on a single issue that overrode all other considerations (in the US, blocking legal abortions is the single biggest driver of these voters).

Post by gadders » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

mgoetzke wrote: post #468

gadders wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not a solved problem when the "Head of Site Integrity" has a history of anti-Trump tweets and called the President a Nazi. And that's just the head of the team. You can see the hard-left and pro-Antifa affiliations of the team outlined here: https://nickmonroe.blog/2019/11/28/dear-jack-twitter-is-poli...

pro-Antifa means Pro Anti-Fascist which means to organise some movement against fascism. Would we really want people to be the inverse ? Meaning would we like them to be more fascist or accepting of fascism ? What exactly happened that AntiFa has become a group that people don't support ? Maybe I missed something there.

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #174

itchyjunk wrote: post #151

Hm, is fact checking solved problem? I remember someone here had their game flagged just because it referenced SARS-CoV-2. I hear almost daily horror stories of youtube algo's screwing up content creator. As a human, I still struggle a lot to read a paper and figure out what I just read. On top of that, things like the GPT2 from OpenAI might generate very human like comment. Is there no way to consider social media a…

> Is there no way to consider social media as unreliable overall and not bother fact checking anything there? The issue is that this is not just a random social media post, it's coming from the President of the US, and most people expect that someone in that position will not post clearly false messages, specially when those messages affect something as fundamental as the election process.

Post by chlodwig » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #259

gjulianm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there no way to consider social media as unreliable overall and not bother fact checking anything there? The issue is that this is not just a random social media post, it's coming from the President of the US, and most people expect that someone in that position will not post clearly false messages, specially when those messages affect something as fundamental as the election process.

The message isn't clearly false. See this article for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-... > 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. You could say tha…