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

301–310 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#301

Post by ciarannolan »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #300
ciarannolan wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute. That 1,285 total includes every case they could find since 1979? LOL This proves the point even more in the extreme that voter fraud is a non-issue. An extremely motivated source like the Heritage Foundation was able to find 1,285 instances over 41 years? About how many billions of votes cast in that time period are we talking about? Maybe my 0.000001% voter fraud estimate was too generous. It's lookin…

blows whistle Flag on the play. Moving the goalposts. Five yard penalty. Repeat the first down. But more seriously, let's go allll the way back to your original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23318100 >>in the complete absence of any actual fraud happening That is an objectively false statement. Will you concede that? >>>An extremely motivated source like the Heritage Foundation was able to find 1,285 ins…

>But more seriously, let's go allll the way back to your original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23318100

On this website, there's an indication above each comment that notes which user left that comment. You'll notice that the comment you link was not posted by me.

>So either election fraud enforcement has become significantly more vigilant post-2000, or election fraud incidents have seen an astronomical uptick. Or both.

An astronomical uptick from 0.0000001% to 0.00001%? Horrifying! This is like when there's 1 murder in a town of 100,000 people one year, 2 murders the next, and the local paper prints "MURDER RATE DOUBLES".

>The incidence rate is non-zero, especially in the past 10 years.

Okay? Whether there was zero or greater than zero incidents doesn't tell us much.

>Some elections have in fact been swayed by fraud.

Fair enough. But again you're basing your argument on conveniently skipping over the real question which is not "was there at least one fraudulent vote in America in the last 41 years?" (the question you're trying hard to answer over and over with "yes!").

The question is whether it's a problem that has a material impact on our elections. Basically, is it really a problem? 1,285 instances over 41 years (and how many _billions_ of votes in that time period) makes the answer extremely obvious.

It's funny because I am in favor of voter ID on principle alone. But you have to acknowledge the fact that voter fraud is a non-issue in practice. There are better arguments to make in favor of election integrity.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#302

Post by Consultant32452 »

foogazi wrote: post #296
Consultant32452 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the place where this falls apart is that he's talking about future events. It's a prediction about the future. Unless you believe he's insinuating supernatural abilities to tell the future exactly, he's just expressing his personal level of confidence about his prediction... which is an opinion. The real problem here is calling what Twitter did a fact check. Because what Twitter did was just promote opposing…

People are held accountable for comments on future events all the time: - medical claims - fiduciary - threats If a doctor tells a patient that there is no way (ZERO!) that taking “the hydroxy” will be anything less than substantially successful - do we let it slide because there is a chance it might be true?

Of course you should hold him accountable. Vote against him. What does that have to do with Twitter "fact checking" something that isn't even a statement of fact? Do you think they'll start fact checking things like statements of fact about the gender pay gap, perhaps the most debunked concept in all of economics?

If you're going to autistically parse the President's tweet, then I will gladly point you towards the word "substantial" in the President's tweet. How do you intend to gauge the President's internal thoughts regarding what he believes would be a "substantial" amount of fraud? He might feel a single bad vote is substantial.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#303

Post by Recurecur »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #21

How would one actually implement a high integrity fact-checking service?

Here's my vote for the best way:

- Crowd sourced

- If 80%+ agreement it's true or false, report it as such with top sources provided

- If less than 80%, report it as "controversial leaning (strongly)..." with sources provided, inviting actual research

In the US, the question of mail voting encouraging fraudulence would get far less than a 80% consensus.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#305

Post by CapricornNoble »

ciarannolan wrote: post #301
CapricornNoble wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blows whistle Flag on the play. Moving the goalposts. Five yard penalty. Repeat the first down. But more seriously, let's go allll the way back to your original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23318100 >>in the complete absence of any actual fraud happening That is an objectively false statement. Will you concede that? >>>An extremely motivated source like the Heritage Foundation was able to find 1,285 ins…

>But more seriously, let's go allll the way back to your original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23318100 On this website, there's an indication above each comment that notes which user left that comment. You'll notice that the comment you link was not posted by me. >So either election fraud enforcement has become significantly more vigilant post-2000, or election fraud incidents have seen an astronomical…

>>>You'll notice that the comment you link was not posted by me.

You are....100% correct. My mistake to attribute that to you.

>>>The question is whether it's a problem that has a material impact on our elections.

Less than 600 votes decided the 2000 Presidential election. In the aggregate that seems tiny, but in swing states in particular, with close elections, the potential implications are massively outsized. And that's to say nothing of the State & local elections where even smaller absolute numbers are impactful ("all politics is local").

>>>But you have to acknowledge the fact that voter fraud is a non-issue in practice.

Today's news: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nj-naacp-leader-cal...

Even one of the winning candidates said the election was trash, partially due to mail-in ballots. And it's not a bunch of minority-oppressing white Republicans in that article who are complaining about the election either (not saying that's your position, but that particular strawman has been brought up elsewhere in the conversation).

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#306

Post by ciarannolan »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #305
ciarannolan wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But more seriously, let's go allll the way back to your original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23318100 On this website, there's an indication above each comment that notes which user left that comment. You'll notice that the comment you link was not posted by me. >So either election fraud enforcement has become significantly more vigilant post-2000, or election fraud incidents have seen an astronomical…

>>>You'll notice that the comment you link was not posted by me. You are....100% correct. My mistake to attribute that to you. >>>The question is whether it's a problem that has a material impact on our elections. Less than 600 votes decided the 2000 Presidential election. In the aggregate that seems tiny, but in swing states in particular, with close elections, the potential implications are massively outsized. And…

>Fair enough. But again you're basing your argument on conveniently skipping over the real question which is not "was there at least one fraudulent vote in America in the last 41 years?" (the question you're trying hard to answer over and over with "yes!").

>The question is whether it's a problem that has a material impact on our elections. Basically, is it really a problem? 1,285 instances over 41 years (and how many _billions_ of votes in that time period) makes the answer extremely obvious.

>It's funny because I am in favor of voter ID on principle alone. But you have to acknowledge the fact that voter fraud is a non-issue in practice. There are better arguments to make in favor of election integrity.

We're just going in circles here. Have a nice evening :)

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#307

Post by throwaway122378 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #282
throwaway122378 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow man. Your first link showed an in person voter location had 27 stuffed ballots and your last link show a mail carrier changed 8 ballots and your argument is that mail in ballots are _easier_ to have fraud on? At this rate if you keep going by the end of this thread you’ll get to some place where the evidence is clear that Republicans get dramatically more advantage from mail in fraud. Does this work in the other…

Both cases of voter fraud which will be magnified with state wide mail in voting.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#308

Post by Marsymars »

cmurf wrote: post #128
jccalhoun wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by public interest he means the valuation of his company when all the Trump fans revolt and leave twitter.

That is inevitable. Trump will one day not be president. And one day while not president he will bitch tweet in a way that dramatically and clearly violates the terms of service. Twitter will have reached its Rubicon with respect to Trump and the public interest / head of state exception they've carved out, and they'll have to make a permanent decision.

My fantasy is that the day Trump stops being president, Twitter bans him with no explanation or comment.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#309

Post by throwaway122378 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #282
throwaway122378 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow man. Your first link showed an in person voter location had 27 stuffed ballots and your last link show a mail carrier changed 8 ballots and your argument is that mail in ballots are _easier_ to have fraud on? At this rate if you keep going by the end of this thread you’ll get to some place where the evidence is clear that Republicans get dramatically more advantage from mail in fraud. Does this work in the other…

Here’s another. https://www.post-gazette.com/news/vote2020/2020/05/15/Allegh...

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#310

Post by Fjolsvith »

Tagbert wrote: post #214
Fjolsvith wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one here is even considering a nation state working to change the outcome of an election. A spy network might get away with it.

Online voting could be vulnerable to such an attack but paper-based voting such as is used by mail in voting is very low tech and distributed. hacking and fraud are hard to scale in that case.

So, every mailbox in a post office gets one or two voter applications or ballots. A bunch of them get sorted out and thrown in the lobby trash can as people pick up their mail.

Some unscrupulous person grabs a bunch, forges signatures on them and mails them back in.

Post reply on HN