251–260 of 311 posts
Someone: I don't trust the establishment
Establishment fact checker: FALSE. The establishment is perfectly trustworthy.
Maybe we need to start talking about The Right to be Suspicious or something.
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"
> 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.
New York times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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?
One could at least make the argument that the population centers should have more weight because that's where most of the people are, and those cities have the greatest financial and cultural influence. But why should, say, Iowa be as important as it seems to be in every Presidential election?
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…
Seems like this policy will be difficult to scale... Who is taking odds on Trump threatening a DOJ investigation before the week is over?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Twitter could possibly fund itself for a long time if they hosted a pay-per-view event of the moment they lock and disable that account for policy violations. It could be the most profitable 5-minutes of pay-per-view streaming in history and also simultaneously the most amazing test of Internet resiliency, ever.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them Despite huge deplatforming efforts over the last decade fringe views have grown to become mainstream and there is less trust between people than ever.
I would argue that misinformation via the web has only metastasized over the past decade and the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal.
Compared to what?
From my perspective the tech censors are already on thin ice - I actually don’t see how they could ramp up efforts much more without facing serious opposition.