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

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#221

Post by piotrkaminski »

hadrien01 wrote: post #46

The warning links to this page: https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 It's a sort of article (I didn't know Twitter had this type of format, I really like it, weirdly enough) that contains an introduction text and a 'What you need to know' paragraph, followed by fact-checking tweets from press organizations. I know where the tweets come from, but who has written the introduction and summary paragraphs, and…

According to Ars Technica [1], this page is "created and managed by our global curation team".

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/twitters-first-f...

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#222

Post by Tagbert »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #94
wwright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump isn’t really “criticizing” mail-in voting in a responsible and measured way here though, is he? He’s claiming that it is a scam by his enemies that will definitely result in massive voting fraud. Is there any evidence for him to make those claims at all? Is there any other way he could have responded, even if he did genuinely care about empowering citizens to vote?

>>He’s claiming that it is a scam by his enemies that will definitely result in massive voting fraud. Is there any evidence for him to make those claims at all? I think the rationale is that the existing incidence of local ballot fraud points at a widespread, under-reported problem that doesn't inspire confidence in the process. Voting by mail is pretty normal to me, being in the military and outside of my home state…

The Inquirer article is talking about old-fashioned ballot stuffing at a polling place, not mail-in voting.

The Dailybreeze is documenting a case where it looks like someone was trying to do a scam with 80 ballots. That could have an impact on a municipal election but would be lost in the noise in a national election and is hard to replicate in a coordinated and unnoticeable fashion.

It looks like the Heritage group is has been collecting cases of voting fraud for 4 years and have 1200 records. Not a huge number over so much time. It’s not clear that that is related to mail-in voting or other kinds of fraud. Again, this kind of stuff is hard to do in a way that has an impact on a national election.

Elections are never perfect but, based on the experiences in Oregon and Washington, I don’t see mail in voting adding a significant added risk. The virus on the other hand does.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#223

Post by ciarannolan »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #209
ciarannolan wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 0.000001% of votes were fraudulent if you take the Heritage Foundation's analysis as fact (1,285 votes fraudulent out of 119,000,000 who voted in 2016). Does 0.000001% fraud qualify as a problem in any reasonable sense? Republicans' electoral strategy is basically "the less people vote, the better". Is that good for democracy? Is that just?

>>>f you take the Heritage Foundation's analysis as fact (1,285 votes fraudulent out of 119,000,000 who voted in 2016) That's not how I interpreted the data. Not 1 incident = 1 vote, but 1 incident = 1 criminal case affecting 1 election. So election fraud at Timbuktu County could have impacted 2 voters, or 500 voters, but either way is recorded as 1 incident. I'm not seeing a link to their actual database so we can't…

>Not 1 incident = 1 vote, but 1 incident = 1 criminal case affecting 1 election.

This doesn't reason out.

The question is "What impact does voter/election fraud have on elections?"

You determine this by calculating the impact that these fraudulent votes had on the election. It doesn't make sense to say "because there was 1 fraudulent vote in one county in one state, we have to count all 500-100,000 (?) votes in that county as fraudulent too."

This Heritage Foundation report is literally an analysis detailing how voter fraud is a non-issue in American elections.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#224

Post by dmode »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #210
dmode wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans have a long history of voter fraud. Here's an example from North Carolina https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-caroli... Based, on this, Republicans cannot be trusted to hold impartial elections

Clearly both major parties in the US are guilty of fraud. All the more reason to implement objective, unbiased security measures to ensure the integrity of the process.

100% agreed. But that has nothing to do with the claim that mail in ballots will have significant fraud.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#225

Post by Tagbert »

throwaway122378 wrote: post #215
kasey_junk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol that story doesn’t show mail in voter fraud either. It shows a systems issue that’s being investigated by the proper authorities with no votes counted. You really are bad at this. Here let me help you. The Heritage foundation has a database of proven voter fraud (all forms) https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/datab... They capture a little more than 300 examples of voter fraud (all forms) in a…

Thanks for proving my point all by yourself

yea, it really didn’t though

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#226

Post by jakelazaroff »

sfj wrote: post #219
jolux wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got any proof of that?

All the new alternative social networks and video sites that have cropped up and the old ones that have ben gaining in popularity is evidence that people are beginning to turn away. Ex. lbry.tv, bitchute.com, gab.com, voat.co, phuks.co, zerohedge.com

This is an expected consequence of deplatforming — once you kick them off, those people are going to go somewhere. For this argument to work, you need to show that those networks are able to grow more than they would as a community on a mainstream platform.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#227

Post by vyhd »

refurb wrote: post #160
HumblyTossed wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Identifying lies doesn't require perfect knowledge of all truth.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#228

Post by [deleted] »

gkoberger wrote: post #12
Barrin92 wrote: post #3

If we're honest a lot of his tweets violate twitters content policy and they do so blatantly. I wonder if they'll ever have the guts to straight up hand him at least a temp ban.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#229

Post by occasionopinion »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #216
[deleted] wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I have no idea what you're trying to prove. In any case: anti-white racism isn't the same as standard-issue anti-black racism. Racism is more than some people not liking your particular skin color on Twitter. Being black means every police encounter is potentially lethal––see today's news, or that jogger two weeks ago for recent examples. People call the cops when you're birding in Central Park, and unless you're luc…

Anti-black racism is obviously worse than anti-white racism. No rational person would argue that they're equivalent.

That does not mean that anti-white racism should be acceptable.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#230

Post by bobdole12345 »

Orou wrote: post #154
acbart wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

This isn't Nam Smokey! There are rules!

I think if the president of the US is unable to operate within the terms of service, he shouldn't get a platform.

Why is that something you're going to argue against?

Am I the only one who gives a fuck about the rules around here?

Post reply on HN