TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

162 点作者 l31g将近 5 年前

27 条评论

User23将近 5 年前
Before I clicked on the link, I assumed this was yet another egregious lie. But this one really doesn&#x27;t qualify. It falls squarely in the category of reasonable opinions. Let&#x27;s look at the claim: &quot;There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent&quot;. Clearly the veracity of the statement rests on the word &quot;substantially.&quot; It&#x27;s inconceivable that no one ever takes, for example, an elderly relative&#x27;s mail in ballot and votes it fraudulently. So for this to be a reasonable opinion, it merely has to be reasonably possible for the claim to be true.<p>So, let&#x27;s consider if such fraud could possibly be substantial. Let&#x27;s use California as an example. Registering to vote is easy, all you need is a web browser[1] and a mailing address where you reside or with a resident willing to give you ballots or ignorant that they are receiving them[2]. Also, the State of California faces an impractically large legal hurdle to reject suspected fraudulent ballots[3] so it can be assumed that most if not all will be accepted. It seems clear based on the observable facts that substantial fraud is certainly possible under the California regime. Please note I am not claiming such fraud actually happens, merely that it is easily practicable for an organization as well organized as, say, a political party. To be honest, I bet literally hundreds if not thousands of readers on this site could build &quot;California vote fraud as as service&quot; as a side gig. Let&#x27;s disrupt the electoral process for a billion dollar valuation!<p>From this I conclude that while I personally disagree with the President, this particular statement is a (probably, I sure hope) incorrect opinion, not a factually incorrect statement.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;covr.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;covr.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbclosangeles.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;more-than-80-ballots-sent-to-san-pedro-apartment&#x2F;106443&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbclosangeles.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;more-than-80-bal...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sacbee.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics-government&#x2F;capitol-alert&#x2F;article203746944.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sacbee.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics-government&#x2F;capitol-aler...</a>
评论 #23318261 未加载
评论 #23319059 未加载
评论 #23323444 未加载
评论 #23322846 未加载
评论 #23323190 未加载
评论 #23322686 未加载
评论 #23332953 未加载
hadrien01将近 5 年前
The warning links to this page: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;i&#x2F;events&#x2F;1265330601034256384" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;i&#x2F;events&#x2F;1265330601034256384</a><p>It&#x27;s a sort of article (I didn&#x27;t know Twitter had this type of format, I really like it, weirdly enough) that contains an introduction text and a &#x27;What you need to know&#x27; paragraph, followed by fact-checking tweets from press organizations.<p>I know where the tweets come from, but who has written the introduction and summary paragraphs, and who has compiled those tweets and photos in that order?
评论 #23319354 未加载
评论 #23319020 未加载
评论 #23321539 未加载
Barrin92将近 5 年前
If we&#x27;re honest a lot of his tweets violate twitters content policy and they do so blatantly. I wonder if they&#x27;ll ever have the guts to straight up hand him at least a temp ban.
评论 #23317707 未加载
评论 #23317686 未加载
评论 #23317655 未加载
评论 #23318080 未加载
评论 #23318202 未加载
评论 #23318716 未加载
blockmarker将近 5 年前
I am glad that unelected corporations are protecting us from the opinions of elected officials.
评论 #23329126 未加载
root_axis将近 5 年前
Seems like this policy will be difficult to scale... Who is taking odds on Trump threatening a DOJ investigation before the week is over?
评论 #23321558 未加载
11thEarlOfMar将近 5 年前
How would one actually implement a high integrity fact-checking service?
评论 #23339096 未加载
评论 #23319575 未加载
评论 #23318158 未加载
评论 #23317910 未加载
xeeeeeeeeeeenu将近 5 年前
This what a 2012 New York Times article[1] said about mail-in ballots:<p>&gt;Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.<p>I&#x27;m sorry, but that so-called &quot;fact checking&quot; looks like a classic case of &quot;Trump said something is bad, so we must defend that thing at all costs&quot;.<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;10&#x2F;07&#x2F;us&#x2F;politics&#x2F;as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;10&#x2F;07&#x2F;us&#x2F;politics&#x2F;as-more-vote-...</a>
__s将近 5 年前
I&#x27;d just like to commend Twitter for going the route I suggested YouTube take <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23266238" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23266238</a><p>No need to censor, only offer a second opinion
im3w1l将近 5 年前
More and more it seems to be devolving into:<p>Someone: I don&#x27;t trust the establishment<p>Establishment fact checker: FALSE. The establishment is perfectly trustworthy.<p>Maybe we need to start talking about The Right to be Suspicious or something.
hhs将近 5 年前
Curious what the process was in designing that warning. How did they A&#x2F;B test this? How did they experiment with different fonts, colors, and spaces?
评论 #23317685 未加载
runawaybottle将近 5 年前
If Covid second wave happens in November, large scale mail in ballot efforts could lead to the biggest voter turn out in American history.
评论 #23317774 未加载
sj4nz将近 5 年前
Twitter could possibly fund itself for a long time if they hosted a pay-per-view event of the moment they lock and disable that account for policy violations.<p>It could be the most profitable 5-minutes of pay-per-view streaming in history and also simultaneously the most amazing test of Internet resiliency, ever.
评论 #23321603 未加载
jerkstate将近 5 年前
It seems like Trump is making a prediction rather than stating a fact, very very strange use of the phrase &quot;fact-checking&quot; by Twitter
评论 #23317790 未加载
Simulacra将近 5 年前
If Twitter is going to enact this policy to one entity they must do it to all. If not then they are not being a neutral platform.
blhack将近 5 年前
I&#x27;m finding the response people are having to this mail in voting thing to be...puzzling.<p>It&#x27;s <i>not</i> a ridiculous thing to wonder about how susceptible mail in voting is to fraud, and it seems like some of us are putting blinders on simply due to our distaste for the current president.<p>If we were to hold a hackathon with a $100,000 prize for the most plausible path to exploit mail in voting in order to swing an election, are people implying that there would be no entries? Or maybe no viable entries? That&#x27;s ridiculous.<p>Here&#x27;s some spitballing: (eh, I removed this. I don&#x27;t think brainstorming how to committ election fraud is a good idea. I&#x27;m assuming that readers of <i>hacker</i> news can probably figure out some relatively obvious ways of casting doubt into the outcome of a mail in election)<p>How are people looking at what recently happened with 100s of millions of dollars of fraud being committed against various US unemployment systems, and not thinking that other systems might be at risk as well?<p>Remember the Iowa caucus? That was a hastily put together vote <i>reporting</i> system, not even meant for tallying, and look at what a disaster it was. Now we&#x27;re expecting that states will radically alter their voting system, in 5 months, and that it won&#x27;t be vulnerable to interference?<p>To be clear: I LIKE mail in voting. I have permanent mail in voting status in my state (Arizona), and my wife and I usually get breakfast at our favorite restaurant and spend HOURS meticulously researching every candidate and BI on the form. Being able to take that amount of time is fantastic, and a luxury I wish everybody could have.<p>But it doesn&#x27;t have to be so polar. I like mail in voting, obviously, but I&#x27;m not so stupid as to think that it cannot possibly be criticized. I am a <i>hacker</i> after all.<p>Boo to twitter for this. This is twitter obviously putting their finger on the scale of an election, and after all of the drama surrounding the idea that foreign actors might have purchased a few 10s of thousands of dollars of facebook ads, I&#x27;d hope that Americans would have a distrust a company where foreign entities have a major stake doing such a thing. Not acceptable in my opinion.<p>Just to highlight my point a little further: here is an article from the nytimes highlighting that mail in voting is far more vulnerable to fraud than in person voting: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;10&#x2F;07&#x2F;us&#x2F;politics&#x2F;as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;10&#x2F;07&#x2F;us&#x2F;politics&#x2F;as-more-vote-...</a><p>Here’s a quote from the article:<p>&gt;Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.<p>and another:<p>&gt; Election experts say the challenges created by mailed ballots could well affect outcomes this fall and beyond.<p>And another:<p>&gt; The trend will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud. While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting<p>So who is to be believed here? Twitter? The New York Times? Why aren’t the experts from this article being listened to?
评论 #23319084 未加载
评论 #23317875 未加载
评论 #23317849 未加载
评论 #23317921 未加载
评论 #23317840 未加载
评论 #23317848 未加载
评论 #23317861 未加载
评论 #23318353 未加载
评论 #23319093 未加载
评论 #23317829 未加载
评论 #23317923 未加载
评论 #23318100 未加载
评论 #23317947 未加载
评论 #23317822 未加载
评论 #23318006 未加载
评论 #23317976 未加载
评论 #23317821 未加载
评论 #23317913 未加载
CawCawCaw将近 5 年前
So they finally did something about his endless lies after four years. Well, well.
Rebelgecko将近 5 年前
Trump is currently tweeting about how this warning message is taking away his 1st amendment rights to free speech, and constitutes interference in the 2020 election. Can&#x27;t wait for these tweets to get the same warning.<p>[1]:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;realDonaldTrump&#x2F;status&#x2F;1265427538140188676" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;realDonaldTrump&#x2F;status&#x2F;12654275381401886...</a>
评论 #23318035 未加载
评论 #23317836 未加载
评论 #23318418 未加载
评论 #23318186 未加载
评论 #23317858 未加载
评论 #23318045 未加载
2019-nCoV将近 5 年前
&gt; Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post....<p>&gt; ....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!<p>Whelp, it was fun while it lasted.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;realDonaldTrump&#x2F;status&#x2F;1265427538140188676" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;realDonaldTrump&#x2F;status&#x2F;12654275381401886...</a>
2019-nCoV将近 5 年前
This is not going to end well. Every single aspect of life that cannot be rigorously tested under the scientific method is destined to become a partisan topic.<p>There is no way to be sure if mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
评论 #23318064 未加载
评论 #23318155 未加载
Fjolsvith将近 5 年前
Twitter would just shit themselves if Trump set up a Mastadon server and moved there.
评论 #23328785 未加载
no_carrier将近 5 年前
I don&#x27;t follow Trump on Twitter but go and look up his feed regularly by Googling &#x27;donald trump twitter&#x27;. I always get there by the first result.<p>This morning? He doesn&#x27;t seem to be on the front page at all... the first result is for a search done on twitter.con for &#x27;donald trump twitter&#x27;, the next result is for the POTUS account. I would say this fact checking thing has had a knock on effect to search results.
slg将近 5 年前
&gt;The move comes on the heels of Twitter&#x27;s decision not to remove comment President Trump made about the death of Lori Klausutis in 2001. The president has tweeted several messages promoting a conspiracy theory that Ms Klausutis was murdered by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.<p>I would be very curious to hear an explanation of this decision. Why do Tweets about mail in ballots receive a warning but tweets accusing a journalist of murder don&#x27;t?
评论 #23317831 未加载
评论 #23317758 未加载
Simulacra将近 5 年前
If Twitter is going to do this to one they must do it to all. If not then they are not being a neutral platform.
quxbar将近 5 年前
I don&#x27;t know why all these expert voting frauds don&#x27;t just take up regular mail fraud?
rurban将近 5 年前
Lol. He often twitters nonsense, but in this case Twitter itself is spreading false information. Of course mail ballots are totally insecure, esp. for nation state actors. Looks like Twitter joined collaboration with the CIA now, who is the relevant nation state actor in this case. There are multiple documented cases.<p>Same for his Hydroxychloriquine argument, which he promoted as good prevention (which is good information with scientific studies proving it), and this was labeled as false and dangerous information. Probably because Chloroquine phosphat is somewhat dangerous (different drug), and it has no proven treatment effects.<p>Please fact check the fact check warnings, and beware of dependent media.
godelski将近 5 年前
I think one of the issues with this will be how it is linking the correct information. I like the little inclusion before tweets, but there&#x27;s no sources on them. Then when you scroll down on the tweets I see them in this order: The Hill, WaPo, CNN, a CBS News reporter, a Fortune Magazine reporter, a Vox reporter, Sr Political Reporter for Huffington, ACLU Nebraska, a CNN political correspondent.<p>The issue here is that everything here is considered in the hard left of the media. I&#x27;m concerned that this will only help grow the divide between Americans, though I also don&#x27;t have a better alternative to this. Clearly there is a lack of coverage of this from the right and in fact the opposite. A quick DDG search of &quot;fox news mail in ballot&quot; pulls up [0][1][2]. So when you see things like this I think it is easier to say that &quot;the left&quot; is trying to trick you. If Fox is your primary source of news, then it does look like Twitter is trying to silence a real issue. If Fox isn&#x27;t your primary source of news then it looks like Twitter is trying to fight misinformation. Things are so crazy that it really is hard to find the truth and there is very good reason to believe that someone is lying. And no one wants to admit that someone they&#x27;ve trusted for a long time is lying to them, especially when there&#x27;s nuggets of truth that you can hold onto.<p>So I&#x27;m a little worried about the repercussions of this, especially since the right already thinks Twitter is supporting the left.<p>Edit: By hard left I mean from the perspective of Fox viewers. My main point is about the perspective of the people this is specifically aimed at. While on the left we don&#x27;t see it that way go talk to your friends on the right, they see it differently. My concern is because we need to unify and not divide.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-of-ballots-stacked-outside-home" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;voter-fraud-california-man-...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;south-carolina-election-ballots-reportedly-found-in-maryland-this-week" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;south-carolina-election-bal...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;video.foxnews.com&#x2F;v&#x2F;6158607323001#sp=show-clips" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;video.foxnews.com&#x2F;v&#x2F;6158607323001#sp=show-clips</a>
评论 #23317838 未加载
评论 #23317793 未加载
评论 #23318010 未加载
评论 #23317785 未加载
Balgair将近 5 年前
It&#x27;s a strange decision by Twitter here, but they are in a strange position.<p>Donny, love him or hate him, does say a fair few things that are ... questionable. Jack has talked about this a bit, and their conclusion thus far has been that anything he says, by virtue of the office, is newsworthy enough. Policies for thee, but not for he. It&#x27;s been a battle with users, but everyone seems to just grumble along.<p>That policy has worked up until today.<p>A lot of work went into this decision. They A&#x2F;B tested the color of the note, likely the font, the positioning, the exact words, the fact check itself, etc. This thing went through meeting after meeting and was run past some good legal counsel. Twitter isn&#x27;t the sharpest tool in the shed, but it&#x27;s also not a rusty shovel. They red-teamed this a fair bit, I&#x27;d imagine. They must have known that Donny would not view it favorably and would do exactly what he is doing currently.<p>All the same they went ahead and decided to make the move at the end of May, ~6 months before the &#x27;fit hits the shan&#x27;.<p>Why?<p>Their stock is, well, fairly ok. Jack seems to be doing alright. Monthly users are flat-ish since 2015, but compared to FB, it&#x27;s a bit of a wash.