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

271–280 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#271

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

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…

Can confirm a similar situtation for the "Briefwahl" in Germany. The topic came up while discussing the security of electronic voting years ago. It was sobering.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#272

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

bobdole12345 wrote: post #230
Orou wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why is the president driving around in a motorcade, has VORFAHRT everywhere, sharpshooters, AF-One and so on, while you have to wait at red lights, and being searched at airports?

/me plays AC/DC - Thunderstruck

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#273

Post by belorn »

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…

From my fact checking, I compare to nations which also allow mail-in ballots but have much more stricter and expensive measure in place to prevent fraud. If the twitter fact checkers are correct then there is no substantially risk with mail-in ballots used by California, then using more strict measures are a waste.

Sweden where I live has several conditions on mail-in ballots. 1: it is only allowed as an exception for Swedish citizen currently residing in a other country. 2: A person must identify themselve through an embassy or the digital identity system which require a Swedish bank to perform identification. The first condition limits the scope of attacks and makes large scale attacks quite visible, while the second condition is very hard to perform. If you could break into hundred of thousands of peoples bank accounts, or take control over an embassy, voting fraud is unlikely your first priority.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#276

Post by happytoexplain »

2tnt2 wrote: post #235
occasionopinion wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No rational person would argue that X racism is worse than Y racism, this kind of thinking is what makes anti-white racism perfectly acceptable hence why you don't see these accounts/tweets taken down.

Tons of people feel that X racism is worse than Y racism, and it's ridiculous to say that they are all irrational people. The reality is that no two things are perfectly equivalent, even if they are both terrible things that should both be eradicated. We should castigate all forms of racism, but that is not at odds with the reality that it is at least a legitimate opinion to claim that the practical consequences of anti-black racism, at least in the English-speaking world, are apparently worse than the practical consequences of anti-white racism.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#277

Post by tchaffee »

umvi wrote: post #269
snowwrestler wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

They aren't always false promises and handouts. Lobbyists get paid big bucks to bribe, oops, I mean to inform politicians on policy. Those promises often get delivered. Unfortunately.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#278

Post by zests »

neotek wrote: post #204
zests wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political posts aren’t pleasant for anyone. They are also often meaningless. Watch as I essentially take the contrapositive of your statement and say > See? Not pleasant. I’d wager a lot of people have problems with that statement and I’d also wager that I could use each of their counter arguments to my statements as counter arguments to yours. I see this pattern a lot. Its strange to me.

>Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Fighting to increase voter turnout is infinitely preferable and authentic to the stated principles of the country than fighting to suppress voter turnout.

If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it.

When talking about politics its hard to tell whether or not people "believe X because Y" or "believe X because it helps the party". Maybe they don't actually care about X but have meta-awareness and claim to believe X because it helps the party.

This is what makes political discussions annoying and frankly inappropriate. There is no possible way to argue in good faith and people have vested interest in arguing outside of good faith. I'd wager that some people believe they are arguing in good faith but do not realize that they are dramatically influenced by the orthodoxy of their political party.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#279

Post by throwaway122378 »

Tagbert wrote: post #225
throwaway122378 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for proving my point all by yourself

yea, it really didn’t though

And how about this https://www.localdvm.com/news/west-virginia/mail-carrier-cha...

It’s come to a point that even the general public is aware that certain democrats are willing to lie, ignore the truth, or flat out say “it doesn’t matter” just to gain power.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#280

Post by root_axis »

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...

Well, it remains to be seen if that actually matters. Let's hope it still does.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/after-twitter-fact-check-t...

Post reply on HN