Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 115

Thread: Twitter Finally Adds a Fact Checking Warning Label to Trump Tweets

  1. Top | #41
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,622
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Now, Trump's complaining that Twitter is policing lies, but never said shit about Obama saying you can keep your doctor.
    Which wasn't a tweet...
    And i doubt was a lie, just unfounded optimism...
    And if it was a lie, wasn't his 18,000th lie...
    [pedantry]It wasn’t a lie, it was (yet again) something deliberately misconstrued. The context was in response to Republican accusations that with a government run health care system, it would be the government that would determine which doctor you had to go to. Obama’s response was to say that’s not correct, the government will not be telling you which doctor you had to go to. Hence, if you like the doctor you are currently seeing you can keep that doctor.

    Plain and simple.[/pedantry]

  2. Top | #42
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    10,257
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    27,086
    Rep Power
    85
    I was thinking of posting a titled version of that link, but that link title is ... rather defamatory.

    Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for 'glorifying violence' | Twitter | The Guardian
    Warning on ‘when looting starts, shooting starts’ post risks further escalation of row between firm and president
    Trump is bellyaching about warnings attached to posts. He seems so whiny, complaining about the tiniest things.

  3. Top | #43
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,622
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    I was thinking of posting a titled version of that link, but that link title is ... rather defamatory.

    Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for 'glorifying violence' | Twitter | The Guardian
    Warning on ‘when looting starts, shooting starts’ post risks further escalation of row between firm and president
    Trump is bellyaching about warnings attached to posts. He seems so whiny, complaining about the tiniest things.
    "Seems"? And to him, of course, it's not tiny at all. It is the primary way he rose to power and the key to him having any kind of chance of re-election (absent all of the many ways he will be cheating, of course). This ties in directly to the ongoing and now firmly unified Russian/Trumpian information warfare that has now become an embedded propaganda machine that no one is paying any attention.

    Too much to go into itt and it's all detailed in my Russia Influence Measured thread. The tl;dr version is that strong-tie online communities--such as Trump's followers on Twitter--all impact their second-tier real life and online friends/acquaintances. Sort of like how normal social media operates, only because of the fanatical nature of these particular people translating into not JUST interacting online (i.e., Trump's "rallies" and whatever the fuck passes for KKK meetings these days, etc), the online influence is magnified and spread more effectively.

    To the point where it can actually result in changes to actual votes cast as established in a 2010 study based on just 61 million Facebook users, who were not aware they were the subject of a study. Again, all of this is detailed and sourced in my thread.

    That study showed that just one "organic" post (meaning no one in the study knew its origin) could actually result in some 340,000 votes from people that otherwise would not have voted were it not for the influence of their "strong tie" online/offline network.

    This is from the summary of the study:

    Voter mobilization experiments 26–28 have shown that most methods of contacting potential voters have small effects (if any) on turnout rates, ranging from 1% to 10%. However, the ability to reach large populations online means that even small effects could yield behaviour changes for millions of people. Furthermore, as many elections are competitive, these changes could affect electoral outcomes. For example, in the 2000 US presidential election, George Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 537 votes (less than 0.01% of votes cast in Florida).
    Had Gore won Florida, he would have won the election.

    To test the hypothesis that political behaviour can spread through an online social network, we conducted a randomized controlled trial
    with all users of at least 18 years of age in the United States who accessed the Facebook website on 2 November 2010, the day of the US congressional elections. Users were randomly assigned to a ‘social message’ group, an ‘informational message’ group or a control group.
    The social message group (n 5 60,055,176) was shown a statement at the top of their ‘News Feed’. This message encouraged the user to vote, provided a link to find local polling places, showed a clickable button reading ‘I Voted’, showed a counter indicating how many other Facebook users had previously reported voting, and displayed up to six small randomly selected ‘profile pictures’ of the user’s Facebook friends who had already clicked the I Voted button (Fig. 1). The informational message group (n 5 611,044) was shown the message, poll information, counter and button, but they were not shown any faces of friends. The control group (n 5 613,096) did not receive any message at the top of their News Feed.
    ....
    We also found an effect in the validated vote sample. For each close friend who received the social message, a user was 0.224% (null 95% CI –0.181% to 0.174%) more likely to vote than they would have been had their close friend received no message. Similarly, for information seeking behaviour we found that for each close friend who received the social message, a user was 0.012% (null 95% CI –0.012% to 0.012%) more likely to click the link to find their polling place than they would have been had their close friends received no message. In both cases there was no evidence that other friends had an effect (see Supplementary Information). Thus, ordinary Facebook friends may affect online expressive behaviour, but they do not seem to affect private or real-world political behaviours. In contrast, close friends seem to have influenced all three.
    ....
    Our results suggest that the Facebook social message increased turnout directly by about 60,000 voters and indirectly through social contagion by another 280,000 voters, for a total of 340,000 additional votes. That represents about 0.14% of the voting age population of about 236 million in 2010. However, this estimate does not include the effect of the treatment on Facebook users who were registered to vote but who we could not match because of nicknames, typographical errors, and so on. It would be complex to estimate the number of users on Facebook who are in the voter record but unmatchable, and it is not clear whether treatment effects would be of the same magnitude for these individuals, so we restrict our estimate to the matched group that we were able to sample and observe. This means it is possible that more of the 0.60% growth in turnout between 2006 and 2010 might have been caused by a single message on
    Facebook.
    ...
    Beyond the direct effects of online mobilization, we show the importance of social influence for effecting behaviour change. Our validation
    study shows that close friends exerted about four times more influence on the total number of validated voters mobilized than the message itself.
    So, yeah, this isn't tiny at all to Trump. This is a direct assault on his primary method of maintaining and mobilizing his only base. This is identical to taking away Hitler's larynx, or having huge signs up behind Hitler whenever he spoke that read something like, "What he is saying is not correct. These are all lies and deliberate falsehoods."

    Iow, Trump needs to be seen as supreme, but now he's subordinate to Twitter, which makes him equal to anyone else on Twitter.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 05-29-2020 at 07:02 PM.

  4. Top | #44

  5. Top | #45

  6. Top | #46

  7. Top | #47
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    10,257
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    27,086
    Rep Power
    85
    The Trump-Twitter fight ropes in the rest of Silicon Valley - POLITICO
    Twitter's decision to fact-check President Donald Trump's tweets has vaulted Silicon Valley's biggest players into a political fight with Washington when they least wanted it.

    The deepening feud between the president and his go-to social media platform is forcing companies like Facebook and Google to gird for a lobbying battle to defend the legal protections that underpin their lucrative business models, sooner and much more publicly than they had originally expected. Those preparations accelerated this week, even as Facebook made it clear to Trump that it doesn't share Twitter's view of how online platforms should handle political speech.

    Now the industry has no choice but to wade into an increasingly partisan debate over free expression, in a preelection season already torn by tensions surrounding the pandemic, mass unemployment and racial unrest.

    ...
    As Trump and Twitter sparred this week, NetChoice — whose members include Facebook, Twitter, Google and scores of other big-name online companies — rushed into an effort to convince the American public that Trump is wrong about an obscure provision of a quarter-century-old communications law.

  8. Top | #48
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    13,479
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    14,186
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    The Trump-Twitter fight ropes in the rest of Silicon Valley - POLITICO
    Twitter's decision to fact-check President Donald Trump's tweets has vaulted Silicon Valley's biggest players into a political fight with Washington when they least wanted it.

    The deepening feud between the president and his go-to social media platform is forcing companies like Facebook and Google to gird for a lobbying battle to defend the legal protections that underpin their lucrative business models, sooner and much more publicly than they had originally expected. Those preparations accelerated this week, even as Facebook made it clear to Trump that it doesn't share Twitter's view of how online platforms should handle political speech.

    Now the industry has no choice but to wade into an increasingly partisan debate over free expression, in a preelection season already torn by tensions surrounding the pandemic, mass unemployment and racial unrest.

    ...
    As Trump and Twitter sparred this week, NetChoice — whose members include Facebook, Twitter, Google and scores of other big-name online companies — rushed into an effort to convince the American public that Trump is wrong about an obscure provision of a quarter-century-old communications law.
    I hope this flares up. BIGLY.
    I don't see how the Mutherzucker can keep a straight face with his "not the arbiter of truth" bullshit for much longer.
    The obvious facts are:

    1) Facebook makes billions from allowing and even encouraging people, trolls and 'bots to sell lies.
    2) Fact checking would be expensive, even if lies weren't a major component of his stock in trade.

    So yeah - he doesn't to stop letting his platform be used to sell lies, no matter what the cost to the Country.

  9. Top | #49
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    5,015
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    15,989
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    What a sniveling-little-rat-bastard full-of-shit-fuck-face-coward. To admit to a need for fact checking would be to admit his "platform" is still being used for nefarious purposes. It's not like it's a public service he's providing for the good of all mankind.
    So, you want and trust Zuckerberg, the fuck-face-coward, to vet content for you?

    Why do you regard yourself as incapable of judgment?

  10. Top | #50
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    13,479
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    14,186
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    So, you want and trust Zuckerberg, the fuck-face-coward, to vet content for you?
    I don't want that . An objective standard would be good though.

    Why do you regard yourself as incapable of judgment?
    It's not myself I worry about. It's this nice lady in Alabama who was posting bitterly this morning about the horrible damage that Obama did to the economy, the scandals, the erosion of the rule of law (the only item in her entire screed that had a shred of fact to it) and speaking adoringly of wonderful upholding of the Constitution by the high-performing Trump Administration.... and the millions of other victims of the propaganda and lies being amplified and distributed by FB.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •