Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[irontaino]

The so-called "fact checkers" also consistently make baseless claims and push conspiracy theories which suit their political interests (WMDs, Russigate etc). They are partisan actors, not reliable sources of information - a problem which Twitter compounded by making logically fallacious appeals to authority (ie. the "experts" say so).

When a bunch of people in Trump's inner circle had suspicious contacts with Russian officials, that's not baseless.

And you prove my point for me when you claim that my examples would constitute "deflections", despite the fact they were generalized to a point which would make making such a determination impossible. One person's "fact" is another's obfuscation. Social media companies should stick to letting people have their say; they should not be in the business of colluding with legacy media or editorializing.

When one points out racial discrimination and how it's still a problem in the United States and the other person responds "but black crime statistics", that's deflection, not fact checking. You're not refuting the facts, you're changing the subject. Trump's claim that mail in ballots would lead to widespread voter fraud, despite a wide body of evidence that voter fraud is an almost nonexistent issue. See how one of these things is not like the other?

[Coughdrop addict]

Trump threatens Twitter and other social media platforms. From the freedumb of speech folks, I hear deafening silence.

Why would they complain when they want Trump to be a dictator?

Social media platforms using the propaganda wing of the Dem party (CNN, WaPo etc.)

Yep, everything you don't like is connected. It's all a conspiracy. It couldn't just be that the Democrats generally tell the truth while Republicans lie habitually and often for no other reason then a love of lying.

and nameless "experts" to "fact check". What could possible go wrong?

"Experts" who "fact check" provide sources so you can check their conclusions. They'll be at the bottom of the article. If you disagree with their conclusions you are free to check the sources yourself.

I must say that with 100,000+ dead Americans, 30,000,000 newly unemployed, and an economy in free fall, you'd think the President would have more important things to do than whine like a baby because one tweet of his was fact-checked.

[Cope]

When a bunch of people in Trump's inner circle had suspicious contacts with Russian officials, that's not baseless.

I'm not going through Russiagate again here. The liberal press - including the very organizations Twitter are using as "fact checkers" - ceaselessly promoted that conspiracy for years based on conjecture and assumed intent. They even employed certain "expert analysts" like Clapper who knew there was no evidence of collusion.

I certainly won't be holding my breath for Twitter to place warnings on every post which propagated/s "collusion" misinformation, even though they're related to the very electoral interference Twitter's "fact checking" policy is predicated on.

As for the Post's "irrefutable" WMD story (which I note you conveniently ignored), I'd say that speaks for itself.

When one points out racial discrimination and how it's still a problem in the United States and the other person responds "but black crime statistics", that's deflection, not fact checking. You're not refuting the facts, you're changing the subject.

As above, that depends on the specifics of the comment. My examples were deliberately generalized to highlight a principle that "fact checking" should not be the domain of social media outlets. You chose to model those examples in a way which suited you. That being the case, let's develop the hypothetical instances further for clarification. What do you think would be the reaction in the following cases?

1. A senior liberal claims that George Floyd's death was proof of institutional racism (as many have done). In response, Twitter "fact checks" the comment, and, citing Breitbart, claims that "there is no evidence that the killing was racially motivated" and that "statistics show that only 0.XX% of African Americans die under unlawful circumstances in police custody".

2. Elizabeth Warren remarks in a tweet that "trans women are women". Twitter responds by stating that this is false. It cites Daily Wire and unnamed "expert" claims that "homo-sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species", that "complete physiological 'transition' is impossible" and "that all of the evidence points to the existence of a clear relationship between gender and physiology".

3. Joe Biden tweets that "AR-15s are weapons of war". Twitter plasters "fact-check" warnings endorsed by Fox News on the comment which claim that "AR-15s do not meet US military specifications" that "they are not used by any military in the world" and that "only a tiny minority of firearm related homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles."

Trump's claim that mail in ballots would lead to widespread voter fraud, despite a wide body of evidence that voter fraud is an almost nonexistent issue. See how one of these things is not like the other?

It isn't for Twitter to "fact-check" anything, especially not prospective events (you can't accurately claim, as Twitter and the legacy press have, that a prediction is "false"). Unsurprisingly, squabbling over the veracity of Twitter's own "fact check" have already begun.

[Vanoi]

Twitter fact-checking on its own platform? The horror.

[irontaino]

I'm not going through Russiagate again here. The liberal press - including the very organizations Twitter are using as "fact checkers" - ceaselessly promoted that conspiracy for years based on conjecture and assumed intent. They even employed certain "expert analysts" like Clapper who knew there was no evidence of collusion.

Seeing as how there were over a dozen idictments, there was merit to the suspicions

I certainly won't be holding my breath for Twitter to place warnings on every post which propagated/s "collusion" misinformation, even though they're related to the very electoral interference Twitter's "fact checking" policy is predicated on.

See above

As for the Post's "irrefutable" WMD story (which I note you conveniently ignored), I'd say that speaks for itself.

Yep, they were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes

As above, that depends on the specifics of the comment. My examples were deliberately generalized to highlight a principle that "fact checking" should not be the domain of social media outlets. You chose to model those examples in a way which suited you.

You can say your examples are generalized all you want, they would still be deflecting. I chose the race one cause that's the most blatantly obvious example of changing the subject instead of addressing the actual argument. The others at least have a case.

That being the case, let's develop the hypothetical instances further for clarification. What do you think would be the reaction in the following cases?

1. A senior liberal claims that George Floyd's death was proof of institutional racism (as many have done). In response, Twitter "fact checks" the comment, and, citing Breitbart, claims that "there is no evidence that the killing was racially motivated" and that "statistics show that only 0.XX% of African Americans die under unlawful circumstances in police custody".

2. Elizabeth Warren remarks in a tweet that "trans women are women". Twitter responds by stating that this is false. It cites Daily Wire and unnamed "expert" claims that "homo-sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species", that "complete physiological 'transition' is impossible" and "that all of the evidence points to the existence of a clear relationship between gender and physiology".

3. Joe Biden tweets that "AR-15s are weapons of war". Twitter plasters "fact-check" warnings endorsed by Fox News on the comment which claim that "AR-15s do not meet US military specifications" that "they are not used by any military in the world" and that "only a tiny minority of firearm related homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles."

It's their platform, they can do run it the way they see fit to. The difference between Trump and the people you mentioned is that instead of throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums, they'd simply refute those fact checks. I also like how you've been conveniently silent on Trump's threats and the executive order he's preparing. I guess the first amendment only matters when it doesn't contradict your political beliefs?

It isn't for Twitter to "fact-check" anything, especially not prospective events (you can't accurately claim, as Twitter and the legacy press have, that a prediction is "false"). Unsurprisingly, squabbling over the veracity of Twitter's own "fact check" have already begun.

You can however look at statistics of past related events and come to an educated conclusion. For example, the fact that voter fraud is statististically insignificant. Hell, we even have a thread about the issue where the OP defeats himself by showing how few examples there have been over the past two decades.

[Aexodus]

You can however look at statistics of past related events and come to an educated conclusion. For example, the factthat voter fraud is statististically insignificant. Hell, we even have a thread about the issue where the OP defeats himself by showing how few examples there have been over the past two decades.

But it does happen.

[irontaino]

But it does happen.

Not enough to warrant making it harder to vote.

[Cope]

Seeing as how there were over a dozen idictments, there was merit to the suspicions

Non of the indictments of former Trump staffers were linked to a criminal conspiracy to interfere in the election. Dem party activists like Schiff and his allies in the press systematically mislead America on that point. The plea bargains of individuals like Flynn - who the FBI knew had not colluded with Russia - were used to promote a false narrative about interference. CNN, NBC, WaPo and the NYT had more than enough access to individuals like Clapper, Rice, McCabe and Yates to know that there was no evidence of collusion, but they kept up the pretence for partisan reasons.

Yep, they were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes

So wrong, in fact, that they ought not be considered a reliable source - which was my point.

You can say your examples are generalized all you want, they would still be deflecting. I chose the race one cause that's the most blatantly obvious example of changing the subject instead of addressing the actual argument. The others at least have a case.

As above, I didn't provide enough information in the original hypothetical for you to know whether the fact would be a "deflection" (although "fact-checking" websites do regularly use their content to deflect and/or obfuscate).

It's their platform, they can do run it the way they see fit to. The difference between Trump and the people you mentioned is that instead of throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums, they'd simply refute those fact checks.

Considering that parts of MN are rioting over the death of George Floyd, I doubt that a calm refutation of the facts I introduced above would be forthcoming. And the point is that no one should have to refute partisan "fact checking" from social media companies. If they want to start curating information to suit certain political interests, that is their choice, but they should be classified as publishers and adopt all the responsibilities that come with it.

I also like how you've been conveniently silent on Trump's threats and the executive order he's preparing. I guess the first amendment only matters when it doesn't contradict your political beliefs?

I haven't been silent on it. I've been posting about it in this thread.

You can however look at statistics of past related events and come to an educated conclusion. For example, the fact that voter fraud is statististically insignificant. Hell, we even have a thread about the issue where the OP defeats himself by showing how few examples there have been over the past two decades.

The specifics of voter fraud (not something I've looked into personally) are besides the point. Social media companies should not be interfering politically.

[Vanoi]

Controlling content on the service you own is not interfering in politics.

[irontaino]

Non of the indictments of former Trump staffers were linked to a criminal conspiracy to interfere in the election. Dem party activists like Schiff and his allies in the press systematically mislead America on that point. The plea bargains of individuals like Flynn - who the FBI knew had not colluded with Russia - were used to promote a false narrative about interference. CNN, NBC, WaPo and the NYT had more than enough access to individuals like Clapper, Rice, McCabe and Yates to know that there was no evidence of collusion, but they kept up the pretence for partisan reasons.

And that's why Trump was too much of a coward to defend himself and did everything he could to hamper the investigation. Nothing suspect there at all.

So wrong, in fact, that they ought not be considered a reliable source - which was my point.

Seeing as how WaPo themselves didn't make the claim that it was irrefutable, they were quoting hawks, I don't get what your point is.

As above, I didn't provide enough information in the original hypothetical for you to know whether the fact would be a "deflection" (although "fact-checking" websites do regularly use their content to deflect and/or obfuscate).

Your hypothetical involves changing the subject entirely, that's deflection.

Considering that parts of MN are rioting over the death of George Floyd, I doubt that a calm refutation of the facts I introduced above would be forthcoming.

Literally nothing to do with Twitter. Police have been murdering unarmed black people since long before Twitter was ever even a thing.

And the point is that no one should have to refute partisan "fact checking" from social media companies. If they want to start curating information to suit certain political interests, that is their choice, but they should be classified as publishers and adopt all the responsibilities that come with it.

It's only partisan when it contradicts your political beliefs

I haven't been silent on it. I've been posting about it in this thread.

And even there, you show that you're okay with trampling the 1st amendment if it doesn't suit your political beliefs

The specifics of voter fraud (not something I've looked into personally) are besides the point. Social media companies should not be interfering politically.

If you don't want social media companies to get political, then politicians shouldn't be using their platforms for their politics or in Trump's case, to feed bold faced lies to his fanatics.

[Cope]

And that's why Trump was too much of a coward to defend himself and did everything he could to hamper the investigation. Nothing suspect there at all.

Seeing as how WaPo themselves didn't make the claim that it was irrefutable, they were quoting hawks, I don't get what your point is.

Your hypothetical involves changing the subject entirely, that's deflection.

Literally nothing to do with Twitter. Police have been murdering unarmed black people since long before Twitter was ever even a thing.

It's only partisan when it contradicts your political beliefs

And even there, you show that you're okay with trampling the 1st amendment if it doesn't suit your political beliefs

If you don't want social media companies to get political, then politicians shouldn't be using their platforms for their politics or in Trump's case, to feed bold faced lies to his fanatics.

I think we've reached an impasse for now. Good chat though.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Controlling content on the service you own is not interfering in politics.

Until it is, which it is.

[Vanoi]

Until it is, which it is.

It isn't. Just more whining from conservatives.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It isn't. Just more whining from conservatives.

"anyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler."

We get it. We understand why you've been able to convince useful *people* that you're justified...

Declaring the earth is flat doesn't make it so (unless I could present critical race theory I suppose...)

[Vanoi]

"anyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler."

We get it. We understand why you've been able to convince useful *people* that you're justified...

Declaring the earth is flat doesn't make it so (unless I could present critical race theory I suppose...)

Haven't seen someone invoke Godwin's law in a while. We get it, you don't have any real coherent argument but there's no need to bring up Hitler because of that.

Social media can control the content on its services. Just like Fox News controls what content they talk about and broadcast on TV. That's their their right as private businesses. Just like a baker can deny baking a cake for a gay couple because he says its violates his beliefs.

Conservatives seem to have no problem with those issues but for some reason social media just has to be treated differently? Its just hypocrisy at its finest.

[Gaidin]

Until it is, which it is.

Except it doesn't.

Dozens of times they've tried to make counter sites to services like twitter and facebook. The irony? Trump doesn't join them.

Not their fault I guess. But also not political. I guess they just need to do better.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Hi guys,

A new round of PoTF is up. Please remember to vote/nominate:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/foru...ht-Competition

[ggggtotalwarrior]

The more I start to post in this sub the more I realize how brain dead modern society is

[Abdülmecid I]

Many progressives lament the defeat of Hillary in 2016, but Donald has provided the usually boring geopolitical analyses with a dose of surrealist narrative of an inestimable value. Could the inclusion of the ANTIFA be a Machiavellian move of the Turkish authorities?

[skh1]

Great.

So it would appear that President Trump has deftly (perhaps better expressed as daftly) and within a comparatively short period of time reduced American influence in the world to a sort of fetid miasma. If we manage to re-elect this gentleman, I may have to don a woolen cap and a high visibility vest, go sit in the street outside where I live and scream "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! MY WOOOOOORLD!!!" over and over and over again until I turn myself into an internet meme. I'm sure the neighbors will understand.