devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content
Beyond that, YouTube has been heavily moderating content on covid. They display labels very similar to the ones Twitter is under fire for now. The only fundemental distinction is everybody agrees the virus is a plague.
Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/zlj517/status/1238111898828066823?s=20
(Cause I'm about to drink a gallon of bleach and eat 2 lbs of raw garlic to ward off Covid as per a tweet's instruction ;) (joking) )
This is neither here nor there but I have considered my self a republican for the last 28 years of my life. This president's actions make me feel physically ill.
Hm.... I don't see how Twitter is preventing anyone from the right to communicate, nor do I sense that Twitter has the power, even if it worked with the next 3 largest social media platforms, to "block all communications." Last I checked, the internet would still exist if Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin shut down.
Platforms both enjoy first amendment protection to moderate their platforms as they see fit as well as protection from liability under 230. They are not mutually exclusive, and platforms have been moderating their content for decades. In fact most online communities could not even function if they had no right to moderate.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
This honestly seems to be the model that Republicans have been pining for all along, they just don't like that they or their supporters are falling victim to its design.
They fact check everyone who represents more than 10% of their total traffic.
It just so happens that only one of those people tweets information that needs fact checking.
Same for Venezuelan dito.
Those machines stored voting tallies on unencrypted compact flash cards, and there were massive other flaws in their security. But those machines were so insecure, that it would be difficult to prove fraud even happened if it had occurred.
Twitter chose a the wrong tweet to fact check. They are now asserting that a black-box mail voting system that has never been tried on this scale is secure, and we should just stop asking questions.
If I said that I was skeptical of the outcome of the elections that were conducted with voting machines made by Dick Cheney's company, in swing states, running Windows 98, am I going to be fact checked?
I'm really amazed at amount of trust people on HN are putting in mail in ballots.
Voting by mail can be done securely, but there are major problems with the current proposals. Just because Trump said it doesn't mean it is not true. My understanding is that the current proposals do not meet international requirements of transparency to qualify as truly fair.
[1]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/03/diebolds-politi...
It seems like a really open-ended thing to fact check.
I wish we had asked more questions about election integrity before 2016. I think it is better that we have a robust discussion about this NOW, before the election.
The most important thing about elections is that they be trustworthy by the majority of the population. Without sufficient transparency and oversight, actual security is meaningless. The Computerphile did a two great videos about the dangers of electronic voting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
It seems like mail in ballots re-create the same problems with electronic voting, except that we are just adding an extra layer to it.
But, I know that countries like Germany and Switzerland have instituted some fairly robust means of securing mail in voting -- none of which we are considering. Simple things, like having the affidavit be on the same piece of paper as the ballot, and having ensuring chain of custody of the ballots by only having postal workers pick them up directly from voters.
Are we allowed to express our concerns about this? I for one do not want to make things worse this time around. Is the discussion about this really ending because Twitter decreed it so?
I'd say fact-checking your top-50 users is a good idea, for statements which are completely and unarguably false beyond all doubt.
They're fact checking more than just Trump:
Also, they are fact checking other people - for example, they've fact checked Chinese politicians tweeting propaganda about COVID starting in the US.