Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52815552
40 comments
Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.
Regardless of what you believe, the upcoming US presidential election will be the most scrutinized and watched election in the world. Everyone will be watching. Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But these kinds of affirmations are just wishful thinking. Voter fraud does happen, and while it is punished, the results (the elected officials being placed in office) are actually basically above scrutiny. For example, recently an elections judge (equivalent of an elections commissioner from what I understand) in Pennsylvania was sentenced for taking bribes to add votes to certain candidates. While he is now punished, are the judges he elected removed from office? As far as I can tell, no they are not.
Or what about the Bush/Gore fiasco? We never even had a proper resolution because American law demands that there be a president by Jan 20 following an election. The best hope is that the elections are secure, not that any wrongdoing is caught after the fact.
But these kinds of affirmations are just wishful thinking. Voter fraud does happen, and while it is punished, the results (the elected officials being placed in office) are actually basically above scrutiny. For example, recently an elections judge (equivalent of an elections commissioner from what I understand) in Pennsylvania was sentenced for taking bribes to add votes to certain candidates. While he is now punished, are the judges he elected removed from office? As far as I can tell, no they are not.
Or what about the Bush/Gore fiasco? We never even had a proper resolution because American law demands that there be a president by Jan 20 following an election. The best hope is that the elections are secure, not that any wrongdoing is caught after the fact.
One reasonable interpretation is that the US President is saying that there is no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud. Is it in fact fraud? You may wish to check whether you're about to engage in fraudulent behavior.
> no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud
That's not at all what he is saying. He said mail-in ballots will be 'substantially fraudulent'. The obvious interpretation is that the president believes that a substantial portion of ballots in a mail-in election are fraudulent, not that any one who votes for him via mail is committing fraud. I don't understand the need to read between the lines here.
That's not at all what he is saying. He said mail-in ballots will be 'substantially fraudulent'. The obvious interpretation is that the president believes that a substantial portion of ballots in a mail-in election are fraudulent, not that any one who votes for him via mail is committing fraud. I don't understand the need to read between the lines here.
Surely it's in the way he's phrased it. "There is no way..." - that's a fact right there.
If the post had said "I don't think there's a way..." Then it might have been a different story
If the post had said "I don't think there's a way..." Then it might have been a different story
When a politician speaks about something political, there is always an implicit 'I believe' or 'I think'. I mean, Biden recently said black-skinned people who don't vote for him aren't black. Obviously, he doesn't need to be fact checked, because he was just saying what he believes. Same with Trump. Politicians speak politics -- a belief system.
Gosh, I really hope Twitter doesn't start fact-checking the Pope. What a sad state of affairs.
Gosh, I really hope Twitter doesn't start fact-checking the Pope. What a sad state of affairs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree. People are demanding social media companies fact check things that they can't know the state of.
Brilliant, this news gladdens my heart. This dangerous cockwomble needs fact checking, hopefully it might make a difference to his ignorant followers. I'm really happy Twitter is starting to apply the same standards to popular accounts that it does to regular users.
The full text of the tweet:
> There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
> There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
Not into politics, but I think they should do it for all twitter influencers or political accounts then
What kinds of evidence-based resources are there I can use to send friends who insist on believing in conspiracies? I usually try and find some peer-reviewed research. Maybe they don't read it because of the dryness but it seems to have the most authority.
When you try to argue with them, you already lost. People believe in what they choose to believe in, and human brains treat attacking one's belief as attacking oneself.
As long as they are not causing harm, just leaving them be is probably the best approach.
As long as they are not causing harm, just leaving them be is probably the best approach.
Believe studies have found that trying to use facts to change people's minds is not effective at least when it comes to politics and beliefs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/...
If you’re in the mood for a very interesting read, I recommend On Being Certain: Believing You’re Right Even When You’re Not (2008) by Robert A. Burton.
The common sentiment that shows up when talking about people who believe in these outlandish conspiracies is that "you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into", or some variant of that. While I think a lot of people may read that and think that it means these people can't be helped, I think it's more that the method you described, a method based in science and reason, will not resonate with them. While I unfortunately don't have any concrete advice about how to help these people, I can say that a more humanistic approach is probably a better bet.
I usually go for asking questions. „Is this the most plausible reasoning?“ / „wouldn’t x be way simpler/cheaper/easier?“
The sceptic guide to the universe by Steven Novella also has a short chapter on how to seed some skeptic thinking into others for them to reconsider their believe in conspiracies.
The sceptic guide to the universe by Steven Novella also has a short chapter on how to seed some skeptic thinking into others for them to reconsider their believe in conspiracies.
I have largely given up trying to convince others. It seems so much more fun to believe these wild ideas than to consider rational ideas based on evidence.
It’s gotten so bad that when Fox News posts news that is critical of the President or it post polls showing Trump is behind, readers claim that Fox has been taken over by liberals.
This is relevant: https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/V...
a related ny times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/opinion/trump-scarborough...
While I believe the concerns about mail-in voting fraud is vastly overblown, there are genuine security challenges with mail-in paper ballots. How would one design a mail-in voting system that ensures all votes are counted without fraudulent or duplicate votes while also providing voter privacy?
How do all the mail-in ballots we already use work? They’re not exactly uncommon or new. For one thing, it’s how a decent chunk of the armed forces vote—and not just the ones overseas, those stateside vote in their “home” state, not where they’re stationed. That’d be a good place to start.
That's where this issue gets kind of messy. Traditionally, to obtain a mail in ballot, a person had to request the ballot based a set criteria. Those who met that criteria would then receive the ballot which they can complete and mail back. There are two separate changes to that system that conservative groups seem to be concerned with.
The first is the changes to how those ballots are collected. Traditionally, the ballots would have to be mailed or turned into a collection center by the voter or a relative. States have made changes so that anyone can turn in the ballots to a collection center. The concern surrounding this is called ballot harvesting, where groups collect large number of ballots and turn them in for voters. There have been cases where this has been done fraudulently.
The second issue is where States are sending mail in ballots to every registered voter instead of just those who have requested one. There are concerns that the opportunities for ballot harvesting that would increase as a result from this. In addition to the concerns of ballot harvesting, there is concern that this could lead to people stealing ballots before they reach the intended voters.
The first is the changes to how those ballots are collected. Traditionally, the ballots would have to be mailed or turned into a collection center by the voter or a relative. States have made changes so that anyone can turn in the ballots to a collection center. The concern surrounding this is called ballot harvesting, where groups collect large number of ballots and turn them in for voters. There have been cases where this has been done fraudulently.
The second issue is where States are sending mail in ballots to every registered voter instead of just those who have requested one. There are concerns that the opportunities for ballot harvesting that would increase as a result from this. In addition to the concerns of ballot harvesting, there is concern that this could lead to people stealing ballots before they reach the intended voters.
In Switzerland we have mail-in voting since many years and it is the most used voting option.
The way it works to ensure that votes aren't fraudulent / duplicate votes while providing voter privacy is as follows:
Inside the main envelope there is your transmission card ("Stimmrechtsausweis") which is signed by you and a separate anonymous return envelope with your actual votes.
When it arrives in the municipality the transmission card will be verrified and (if valid) the still closed return envelope will be put into the ballot for later counting.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland for more information.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland for more information.
Thanks! I vote by mail in California, but it is "fire and forget", so it's interesting to see how another system works. I know some people in California who have received email confirmation that their mail-in ballot has been received (though I haven't).
The UK has had mail voting for years. It works very well. Your ballot is marked with a unique reference vote. Once you mark the ballot, you fold and seal it, then put it into another envelope that also comes with the ballot.
[deleted]
I'm very interested to see where this goes long term, but just today the widower of Lori Klausutis mailed Jack Dorsey directly, asking Twitter to take down a flagrant lie Trump tweeted about the murdered victim by a morning new host Trump doesn't like. Twitter refused.
There's a lot of content Trump tweets that would get most accounts banned.
There's a lot of content Trump tweets that would get most accounts banned.
Let’s asume this is the first of many such warnings. Let’s also assume that (being a private company) Twitter evades any attempt at pressuring it into desisting (as is indeed likely).
Will Trump tweet less? Will he relocate to another platform? (If so, which?) Wil this materially affect his relationship with his followers?
Will Trump tweet less? Will he relocate to another platform? (If so, which?) Wil this materially affect his relationship with his followers?
I see no reason why he’d change; both because I doubt he can stop, and because his fans are already well primed to trust him more than <negative adjective> tech companies.
Why’d it take so long?
Is the tag #twitter?
Not a
Ah the old slippery slope argument. Why try to moderate content on any platform?
How do you police a promise before it's fulfilled? Completely different from lying.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286