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

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#151

Post by CapricornNoble »

jedieaston wrote: post #90
zozbot234 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or 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.

Yeah, 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-pub...

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#152

Post by henriquez »

jolux wrote: post #93
henriquez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more fair to characterize them as corporatist and neoconservative/neoliberal. If the mainstream media were actually left-wing they would be propagandizing for Bernie Sanders. Instead they’re propagandizing in favor of old-guard politicians like Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi. But no matter how you slice it, it’s still propaganda. I agree with the parent commenter that this will only backfire, likely causin…

I'm not sure why you think there's an intended effect here other than "maybe get a few people who are more on the fence to read something real and make it look like Twitter is Doing Something TM." I would hardly be surprised if it succeeded at those things.

“The facts” on mail-in ballots are mostly opinions though. It’s presumptuous of a tech company to insert themselves into public discourse to correct what they perceive as wrongthink, and it invites a dangerous situation where a few tech companies can enforce discourse that suits their political biases. Just because people may agree with them in this case doesn’t make it a good idea long term. To me this looks like a slippery slope into fascism.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#153

Post by austincheney »

odkamkfn wrote: post #131
fzeroracer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So assuming this is true, two things. One, why haven't you reported your aunt for voter fraud? Voter fraud is a very serious issue and it seems to me that you're letting a criminal go free. This can be easily verified by telling the government and having the three others confirm who they voted for. For two, if she is mailing in the ballots, then is she forging their signature as well as collecting their SSNs? Or are…

Snitches get cross stitches. Don't report your family - talk to them.

I joke with my kids that it’s snitches get ditches to amp up the nonsense level.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#154

Post by Orou »

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

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them.

Who do you believe should have final say over which person or group of people can have a platform, and who can't?

Should it be whoever owns that particular platform? Should it be the government? Should it be the court of public opinion? I've yet to see a compelling argument for deplatforming that answers this question, because what is acceptable to society has large grey areas that are constantly shifting. I think the intentions are nothing but wonderful - I'm very glad that communities like those in the report you cited, and many similar ones, no longer exist on Reddit. The problem as I see it is that censorship lowers visibility of hate speech very effectively, but if anything seems to strengthen people's convictions that they are right about what they believe. Hateful subreddits may disappear, but is that clear evidence that the people that participated in them changed their minds about what they had expressed online? I find that conclusion dubious at best.

I see this issue most strongly with conspiracy theorists, which seem to be a dime a dozen in 2020. Censorship is nothing if not evidence that what someone is saying is true - see the recent "Plandemic" viral video as a great example.

Deplatforming is, like I said, well-intentioned, but like so many "solutions" it is obsessed with the symptom of the disease, not the cause. It is based on the very old but very wrong notion that 'if only everyone believed what I believe, all the world would be at peace'. That notion is the cornerstone of religious dogma and has been the justification for religious conversion, forcible or otherwise, for millennia. There are proven ways to moderate people's beliefs through civil discourse. The issue is that it is so time consuming, unsatisfying, and thankless (not to mention that you don't get to play moral superiority games) that I'm not surprised people would rather just throw down the banhammer instead.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#155

Post by baddox »

jerkstate wrote: post #36
baddox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baseless speculation about the integrity of US national elections is a perfectly reasonable thing to fact-check and tag as misleading.

I'm glad at least you agree that his tweet is speculation.

The 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.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#156

Post by krapp »

Soulsbane wrote: post #146
bosswipe wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

53.9% of us voted against Trump.

Exactly! He didn't win the popular vote.

The popular vote has never mattered, and Americans have never changed that, despite having a couple of centuries of ample opportunity to do so.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#157

Post by occasionopinion »

User23 wrote: post #119

Before 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 exam…

It'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"

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#158

Post by blhack »

klyrs wrote: post #143
blhack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 registr…

A multinational company just decided to put their finger on the scale of a US election. I think that decision and the way it was made invites scrutiny.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#159

Post by krapp »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #151
jedieaston wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or 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.

Yeah, 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 Tru…

This is a man who wants to retrofit the carrier fleet to use steam powered catapults because he found all the computers confusing[0]. You think anyone would even bother trying to explain any of that to him? He uses Twitter because it's the only thing he's comfortable with.

[0]https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/28/trump-aircraft-car...

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#160

Post by refurb »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #87
daenz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jack 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

As part of the public, I would rather my President's tweets not be lies, half truths and flat out nastiness.

Who is the arbiter of truth? Jack Dorsey?
Post reply on HN