Hacker News Reader

Comment by commandlinefan | Hacker News Reader

> facts and those can be moderated objectively.

That’s true. I don’t trust twitters moderation team to limit themselves to those facts even a teeny, tiny bit.

This is crazy, I know, but if you're not sure about objective facts like "when the polls are open" or "who is running for each position", the best course of action would be to consult your local elections board. If you're in the US, your local elections board almost certainly has a .gov website and multiple channels by which you can obtain this information, and it will be much more trustworthy than rather than random people on Twitter (or Facebook, or TikTok, or literally any social media channel, for that matter).

Right.. I mean this is the same moderation team that still believes that Trump didn't win the 2020 election and posted facts saying he didn't. How can they be unbiased?

Just kidding.. people here are just upset that facts hurt their preferred candidate in 2020.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is what happened here, will result in misinformation about these basic things being used to suppress votes from being cast.

This sentiment, and this thread, is bordering on unintelligible.

Is Twitter such critical election infrastructure now that if it’s trending information is not perfect the provenance of the election is now in question?

If so, how long has Twitter been this important? Would elections function without it? How much “misinformation” is enough for the election to be suspect?

Is this concern simply limited to what’s on Twitter itself and not, ya know, out in the citizenry?

It's bad to amplify election disinformation. Its pensiveness enhances its efficacy and it doesn't need to be particularly widespread to be impactful. Georgia was decided by under 12000 votes in the 2020 presidential election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com