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

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#261

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

krapp wrote: post #253
sfj wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How would that be worse than a few key districts in one or two swing states running everything? Presidential candidates can afford to ignore entire sections of the country because they don't matter. 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, sa…

Because otherwise only New York, Texas and California matter, which the framers of the Constitution decided was a bad idea.

I actually like the principle of the electoral college, it reminds me that the US is in fact, a Union of States.

The real issue I see are the rampant gerrymandering of the congressional districts, which have a far greater skewing effect on the results than the electoral college (well, technically the same because the congressional districts are identical to the electoral college).

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#263

Post by Zecar »

dbbk wrote: post #255
root_axis wrote: post #11

Seems like this policy will be difficult to scale... Who is taking odds on Trump threatening a DOJ investigation before the week is over?

There is no crime the DOJ can justify investigating...

In-kind political donations that are not properly recorded and reported by Twitter as it makes moves to benefit the DNC.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#264

Post by wafn »

moeadham wrote: post #247
blockmarker wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a false narrative.

https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advi...

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#265

Post by knolax »

sfj wrote: post #250
moeadham wrote: post #248

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?

If the majority of people live in LA and NY, then that'd be reasonable, but that's not the case. If we got rid of the electoral college, rural voters would still be a substantial portion of the population. In the current system rural voters in California are being drowned out by coastal cities where as urban voters in inland states are being drowned out by rural districts.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#266

Post by lordlimecat »

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…

>Please note I am not claiming such fraud actually happens,

Though it would be naieve to assume it does not. Internet based crime goes through incredible hurdles today to bypass 2fa and anti fraud measures which are substantially more sophisticated than what the voting system has in place.

To suggest that criminals and nation-state actors would spend enormous effort to spread misinformation and steal credit cards, but completely ignore the far easier voting system, is absurd.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#267

Post by lordlimecat »

dmode wrote: post #197
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…

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 ?

Why not just claim that your network could not possibly be compromised despite no IDS / HIDS / AV? I'm sure there would be no evidence there, either.

What evidence of fraud would you expect? How would anyone know? And given the sophistication of fraud these days (bypassing 2fa, number porting, etc) - - how could you possibly expect zero fraud in a system whose only controls are human?

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#268

Post by JeremyNT »

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…

> So for this to be a reasonable opinion, it merely has to be reasonably possible for the claim to be true.

This position makes no sense to me, because the original statement indicates certainty. Therefore, you need to test the opposite of what you suggest, i.e. the statement can only be true if the election must contain substantial fraud.

When you negate the double negative, the claim in the tweet is:

> mail-in ballots will certainly be substantially fraudulent

Therefore if there is any chance that they will not contain substantial fraud, it is clearly a false statement.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#269

Post by umvi »

snowwrestler wrote: post #196
umvi wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't too much voter turnout bad though? Do we really want every poor ignorant impoverished (or rich) American voting? Or just the people that take democracy seriously and vote after having puzzled it out? If you reduce the friction too much (or even force people to vote) you'll get a lot of voting based on who promised the most goodies/handouts or emotional appeal rather than rational reasoning.

Voting is not a structured intellectual exercise like taking a test or writing a paper. There's not a single "right" answer that you have to be smart to figure out. Voting is an exercise in representation. People vote based on what they want , not what they know. Desires, dreams, and concerns are not knowledge. Smart people, educated people, still have emotions, can still have hugely different values, and want wildly…

In an ideal democracy, that's how it works. But we see in a corrupt democracy, the elite politicians manipulate people that think with emotions, and buy their votes with false promises and handouts. And they can never be blamed because "4 years is not enough to accomplish much"

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#270

Post by jakelazaroff »

sfj wrote: post #249
jakelazaroff wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alread…

Not all exponential growth is the same: x^2 and x^1.01 are both exponential. I’m asking you for evidence that the exponent is higher for niche isolated networks than it is for communities on platforms with algorithmic promotion to a massive existing userbase.
Post reply on HN