Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#141

Post by odkamkfn »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #106
Rebelgecko wrote: post #28

Trump 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/12654275381401886...

Jesus goddamned Christ, even the President of the United States doesn't realize that a corporation is incapable of violating your First Amendment rights.

he doesn't mention the first amendment - free speech is about more than american laws.

Saying that what twitter is doing is "stifling free speech" is a matter of opinion, and while you can certainly argue against the statement there's no need for the amendments to the us constitution to come into it.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#142

Post by root_axis »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #122
blhack wrote: post #33

I'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 electio…

People have been voting by mail for decades, in the US and many other democracies. There haven't been any incidents. And, yes, I am convinced wide-scale fraud would be almost impossible to hide: you can't pull off any fraud without, for example, many voters turning up at polling places even though they have been mailed a ballot. Or people noticing the voter rolls show them having voted when they didn't. Or whatever s…

> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYoIrdZXQAILKlB.jpg*

Am I misunderstanding something? Are you saying they completely closed down all those polling stations? It seems like the less populated areas have more* polling stations than denser ones, what is the justification for this?

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#143

Post by klyrs »

blhack wrote: post #120
klyrs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Twitter's statement: > Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots. This not "wondering about how susceptible mail in voting is to fraud," it's an outright lie.

>In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots. How could you possibly know this, and how could twitter possibly know this? Surely that is the intent , but what do you make of stories like this one: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/goldstein-investi... "Only registered voters will receive ballots", you cannot state a future event as a fact , since it hasn't actually happened yet. Stories like the one…

What a bad-faith take. Technically, no, twitter's statement is not a fact about the future, but merely a fact about California's policies. In the utmost of pedantry, it should read "According to California's election policies, ballots are only to be sent to registered voters at the addresses listed on their registration."

But if we're really drilling into semantics, you posted a link about dead people on the registry. That does not, in fact, preclude twitter's statement. Hundreds of dead people have active voter registrations! Twitter's statement is not invalidated by this.

But neither does it support Trump's claim about "significant" voter fraud. Hundreds of votes in the state of California is neither significant, nor guaranteed that the dead people's ballots will be used.

But Trump's claim is that ballots will be sent to everybody in the state. That's a far greater lie than your overwrought interpretation of their statement.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#144

Post by sixstringtheory »

odkamkfn wrote: post #127
sixstringtheory wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It 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?

I'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.

Every 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.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#145

Post by fzeroracer »

2019-nCoV wrote: post #136
fzeroracer wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering 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…

Has 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.

This isn't what I was asking. You're changing the argument now to try and claim that Trump's tweets would have increased scrutiny on mail-in voting, when in reality most states have had mail-in voting before the Trump presidency and has seen low levels of voter fraud.

You're trying to do a post-hoc justification in attempt to rationalize Trump's tweets rather than answer my argument. I'll ask you again: Where's the voter fraud data showing that vote by mail causes a massive amount of fraud?

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#146

Post by Soulsbane »

bosswipe wrote: post #130
Shish2k wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, this is what The People democratically voted for; and with our current voting system, the will of us 49% who don’t want to hear it counts for nothing u_u

53.9% of us voted against Trump.

Exactly! He didn't win the popular vote.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#147

Post by colinmorelli »

aaaaaaaaaaa10 wrote: post #95
colinmorelli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "preserving the words of the president" probably fits pretty squarely in the realm of public interest, even if they're blatantly false.

I know for a fact my aunt mails in ballots for her husband, her father and her mother. Claiming that there is no mail-in voter fraud among 300 million Americans is quite absurd in my opinion.

I didn’t say there’s zero voter fraud. I said his tweet, which suggests that more mail in ballots will lead to “substantial fraud” is false.

That said, perhaps “unsubstantiated” is a better description.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#148

Post by viraptor »

umvi wrote: post #77
viraptor wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

I thought someone might interpret it that way, which is why I quickly edited to say "or rich" as well. However, you must admit that the ignorant poor vastly outnumber the ignorant rich.

In the same way highly intelligent poor outnumber the highly intelligent rich. + some slight skew due to living in poverty actually impacting your development, but it's not enough to overcome the overall distribution.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#149

Post by colinmorelli »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #88
colinmorelli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "preserving the words of the president" probably fits pretty squarely in the realm of public interest, even if they're blatantly false.

That's not Twitter's job. There are people who are supposed to do this.

When you have become one of the de-facto news sources for a sizable portion of the population, it does sort of become your job.

Whether it’s good that they have become a news source or not is a valid question. But right now, they are, and I think preserving the president’s tweets seems like a pretty easily defensible decision. Even if it is also (or primarily) motivated by their own business interests.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#150

Post by [deleted] »

acbart wrote: post #18
gkoberger wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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 the…

I 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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN