I am glad that unelected corporations are protecting us from the opinions of elected officials.
Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
241–250 of 311 posts
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Networks tend to follow an exponential growth rate, so even if the same number moved to the alternative platforms, the time it would take them to grow large enough to be significant would shorten substantially.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Networks tend to follow an exponential growth rate, so even if the same number moved to the alternative platforms, the time it would take them to grow large enough to be significant would shorten substantially.
Why would it shorten the growth period compared to mainstream platforms, where there are far more users who could join the community? Is there any evidence that this is the case?
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#244I'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…
> Boo to twitter for this. This is twitter obviously putting their finger on the scale of an election, Pointing out that trump is lying isn't a bad thing.
I mean, its hard to say that no voter fraud isnt going to happen...
but for it to happen in any meaningful way is super super unlikely as most other democracy's around the world can attest to.
he's technically right, but its not going to be in the order of even 1%. even if EVERY person in the US voted by mail, fraud on a level that would less than 1% of the entire vote.
Its a stupid blatant obvious ploy to try and gerrymander the vote.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#245Earlier 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
Yeah but... this is the President of the United States we're talking about, not a random Reddit user. He's already been raised up and legitimized. I don't think that study applies... in fact, I don't think any study applies, since this is the first time we've ever seen this.
On the other hand, this is his personal account @realDonaldTrump, not the official @POTUS that he decided he was above of.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>>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…
I found their webpage for their database! It's not 1 database record = 1 voter, they are listing cases of election abusers, often multiple criminal defendants in a single record, with multiple felonies and multiple votes per record.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Here's one entry for the state of Pennsylvania: "According to Wild Acres Property Manager Robert Depaolis, Cowher approached him and asked him to provide Cowher with ballots that were due to be mailed to property owners in the community who seldom voted, for the express purpose of filling out those ballots and guaranteeing victory for Cowher's preferred Board of Directors candidates. Depaolis went to the state police, who surveilled a meeting where Depaolis handed over the ballots, catching Cowher in the act of filling out the mail-in ballots. He was arrested and subsequently convicted on 217 counts, including forgery, identity theft, and criminal conspiracy. His accomplice, Kupershmidt, was found guilty on 190 counts."
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has been running absentee ballots for a long time. Are you saying all of them had "substantial fraud" ? If so, why didn't the President, who had control of 3 branches of govt and had a commission to prove election fraud, couldn't find any evidence ?
What I heard was that California refused to cooperate, and the commission couldn't do much without their cooperation. Though this is only a rumor I heard.
If it’s a rumor why are you repeating it.
Your are spreading false narratives. Stop.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
The popular vote has never mattered, and Americans have never changed that, despite having a couple of centuries of ample opportunity to do so.
The whole reason there is a United States of America is because each state would get a voice in choosing the president. By only going by popularity, a few select cities decide all. If it was proposed that way, the USA would never have formed and we'd have a bunch of individual separate countries.
“The only reason we have an application is because the original developers wrote it in COBOL. Refactoring it to the realities of the world today is blasphemy!”
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Networks tend to follow an exponential growth rate, so even if the same number moved to the alternative platforms, the time it would take them to grow large enough to be significant would shorten substantially.
Why would it shorten the growth period compared to mainstream platforms, where there are far more users who could join the community? Is there any evidence that this is the case?
> Why would it shorten the growth period compared to mainstream platforms, where there are far more users who could join the community?
Because networks tend to follow an exponential growth rate. The time it takes to go from 1 to 128 equals the same time it takes to go from 128 to 16384, so if you add 127, you've shortened the time for the network to grow from 1 to 16384 by half. Meanwhile, for a platform that already had 16384, subtracting 127 is a drop in the bucket.
> Is there any evidence that this is the case?
Facebook/Youtube/Twitter/et al couldn't have grown as much as they did as fast as they did unless that was the case.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole reason there is a United States of America is because each state would get a voice in choosing the president. By only going by popularity, a few select cities decide all. If it was proposed that way, the USA would never have formed and we'd have a bunch of individual separate countries.
“The only reason we have an application is because the original developers wrote it in COBOL. Refactoring it to the realities of the world today is blasphemy!”
What is so different? Are you sure the USA would hold together if they changed the voting structure so that NY and LA ran everything?