Twitter Finally Adds a Fact Checking Warning Label to Trump Tweets

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the discussion has come to the point where the argument from some is that because we can't do something perfectly we can't do anything at all. Time to scrap our constitution, bill of rights, etc. because none of that shit is perfect either.

This precisely what Democrats DO, and what one should expect on a message board rife with them. They seek perfect representation of their particular form of perfection and cannibalize that which fails to rise to the ultimate idealist level, even if meets 50% of the goal.
Biden's campaign manager summed it up pretty well when she said that you shouldn't compare something to the All Mighty, but instead to the AllTernative.

I want whatever you're smoking.

 

[ZiprHead]

Facebook employees go public with disagreement over Zuckerberg's handling of Trump
"I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up. The majority of co-workers I’ve spoken to feel the same way," tweeted one Facebook employee.

Facebook employees are speaking out on social media in opposing the company's decision not to take down posts from President Donald Trump that have been widely condemned as attempts to incite violence.

Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have been at the center of a heated debate over how technology companies should handle some of the president's recent statements about protesters and rioting, including "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." Those comments came in response to protests over the death of George Floyd, with video of a police officer kneeling on Floyd having initially gained some traction via Facebook.

Twitter put a warning on a tweet from the president with that language, but Facebook did not take action. Zuckerberg has repeatedly defended the company's policy of taking a hands-off approach with statements from politicians.

That has led to widespread criticism from outside the company, and reports of growing unrest inside the company.

 

[Elixir]

"...The majority of co-workers I’ve spoken to feel the same way," tweeted one Facebook employee.

Tweeted. Lulz.

Motherzucker censors what he doesn't like, as anyone who has crossed his capricious line knows first hand. Hence, the employee "tweets" and doesn't "post".
You can bet he likes Donnie and Vlad's money.

 

[Metaphor]

So the discussion has come to the point where the argument from some is that because we can't do something perfectly we can't do anything at all. Time to scrap our constitution, bill of rights, etc. because none of that shit is perfect either.

No, it's more fundamental than that.

I don't need or want Facebook or Twitter or any other multibillion dollar corporation "vetting" content for me.

Incredibly, some people on this board want Facebook, cofounded and run by a 'fuck face coward' they hate and distrust, to vet content for them. And they want the government to force Facebook to do it.

It isn't a matter of abandoning the idea because it can't be perfect--it can't be perfect by its very nature. It's a matter of abandoning the idea because the idea sucks.

 

[Metaphor]

Because, one would think--as you apparently do--that everyone can in fact tell a blatant lie without it needing to be pointed out to them by the medium being used to spread those lies.

No, I don't think everyone can do that. I know people who are much smarter than me who have believed all kinds of false information.

That still doesn't mean I want the government to force Facebook to vet my Facebook feed.

But at the same time we have millions who evidently either couldn't figure out for themselves that their preferred candidate was in fact telling deliberate falsehoods, or they could and they just didn't care.

So, again, it would seem logical that polling those people to see their reactions over time would be helpful and lo and behold, we do actually find some correlation between approval ratings in those polls and how many once loyal are now not so much. Not among a core 10-15%, of course, as that's just a typical fanatic devotion of people that are simply too stupid or too indifferent to care, so they can easily be written off as irrelevant pieces of shit that they so clearly are.

I mean, along with being able to tell blatant lies, we can also tell who among us are irrelevant pieces of shit, right? There's some low hanging fruit for you.

But for the other 85-90% that originally supported someone who pretty much ONLY tells blatant lies and deliberately deceitful bullshit, questions remain as to why in the world THEY are not intelligent enough to abandon a serial liar whose tweets are actually inciting violence and causing deaths and shifting blame and the like.

And we should also factor in WHY such a person is objecting so strenuously to being fact checked--along with why they even started and insisted on continuing to use a platform that previously had only served for comedians, c-list celebrities and obese basement dwellers to fart out irrelevant musings--in the first place. If it's really no big deal to include a fact check--since we are ALL fully capable and equally intelligent and can easily discern all of the wheat from the chaff--then that cuts both ways and no one should give a tiny shit about an independent confirmation provided by the platform.

What? I didn't say we were all fully capable and equally intelligent. I just don't want Twitter or Facebook vetting my content and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that they should do it because other, lesser people will benefit from it.

There is the old lady doth protest too much syndrome going on here, so that's even more revealing. I have never been in a situation where I would be upset by anyone on this board, for example, saying: "I fact checked his claims and concur with his findings." Or, for that matter, "I fact checked his claims and found the following issues with his findings."

But then I'm not a demonstrably unbalanced, sociopathic serial killer with tremendous power that some 60 million people voted for and about 40 million continue to inexplicably give a pass to in spite of all of the blatant lies I keep telling them.

So, to that flipside, since there is no harm in Twitter pointing out the obvious (the "blatant"), and no liar can object to their lies being pointed out, and the 60 million people who voted for Trump surely already also see the blatant lies and don't care that he's blatantly lying to them, then there is no harm whatsoever in Twitter doing whatever the fuck they want to in regard to his Tweets.

Sure there's harm. If it makes no difference to people, it's just a waste of resources.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the discussion has come to the point where the argument from some is that because we can't do something perfectly we can't do anything at all. Time to scrap our constitution, bill of rights, etc. because none of that shit is perfect either.

No, it's more fundamental than that.

I don't need or want Facebook or Twitter or any other multibillion dollar corporation "vetting" content for me.

Incredibly, some people on this board want Facebook, cofounded and run by a 'fuck face coward' they hate and distrust, to vet content for them. And they want the government to force Facebook to do it.

It isn't a matter of abandoning the idea because it can't be perfect--it can't be perfect by its very nature. It's a matter of abandoning the idea because the idea sucks.

Actually is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more fundamental than that, but I won't bore you with the details.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That still doesn't mean I want the government to force Facebook to vet my Facebook feed.

Neither do I. But if they won't do it voluntarily and due to the inescapable fact that Facebook has--unfortunately and much to every intelligent person's chagrin--supplanted all other sources of news in this country and thereby has become THE defacto "mainstream news" medium for the majority of Americans, such oversight is not unprecedented, but also seems yet another strawman, as I don't recall seeing anyone argue that the government should force FB to "vet" your FB feed.

As others have already pointed out, FB ALREADY has and uses tools that do that, however, so FB is right now doing precisely that, they just aren't filtering for certain types of posts, so even if your comment were not a strawman, it's irrelevant since it's already happening. Other than perhaps in the first days--literally--of FB, they have always been predeterming what you do and don't see in your particular feed.

I just don't want Twitter or Facebook vetting my content

Again, already too late. It's not possible, in fact, for them NOT to vet it. The technology does not have the capacity for you to see ALL possible content, so, again, your objection is moot at best.

and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that they should do it because other, lesser people will benefit from it.

So how arrogant are you then, because none of us can gauge it if that's really the case?

There is the old lady doth protest too much syndrome going on here, so that's even more revealing. I have never been in a situation where I would be upset by anyone on this board, for example, saying: "I fact checked his claims and concur with his findings." Or, for that matter, "I fact checked his claims and found the following issues with his findings."

But then I'm not a demonstrably unbalanced, sociopathic serial killer with tremendous power that some 60 million people voted for and about 40 million continue to inexplicably give a pass to in spite of all of the blatant lies I keep telling them.

So, to that flipside, since there is no harm in Twitter pointing out the obvious (the "blatant"), and no liar can object to their lies being pointed out, and the 60 million people who voted for Trump surely already also see the blatant lies and don't care that he's blatantly lying to them, then there is no harm whatsoever in Twitter doing whatever the fuck they want to in regard to his Tweets.

Sure there's harm. If it makes no difference to people, it's just a waste of resources.

First of all, it clearly does make a difference or else Trump wouldn't have his panties all up in a bunch over it and his idiot minions wouldn't be charged with desperately coming up with any pathetic argument against it. Secondly, a "waste of resources" isn't necessarily a harm, even if it were true.

So, again, since there is no harm to it and no liar can object and they already do it as a constraint of the medium/technology no matter what, it may as well serve the good.

 

[Metaphor]

Neither do I. But if they won't do it voluntarily and due to the inescapable fact that Facebook has--unfortunately and much to every intelligent person's chagrin--supplanted all other sources of news in this country and thereby has become THE defacto "mainstream news" medium for the majority of Americans, such oversight is not unprecedented, but also seems yet another strawman, as I don't recall seeing anyone argue that the government should force FB to "vet" your FB feed.

As others have already pointed out, FB ALREADY has and uses tools that do that, however, so FB is right now doing precisely that, they just aren't filtering for certain types of posts, so even if your comment were not a strawman, it's irrelevant since it's already happening. Other than perhaps in the first days--literally--of FB, they have always been predeterming what you do and don't see in your particular feed.

Yes, obviously if you have 300 Facebook friends who post multiple times a day, Facebook filters your feed to what it thinks you want to see.

But filtering for what you appear to be interested in is not the same thing as filtering out something a Facebook employee thinks is 'fake news'.

So how arrogant are you then, because none of us can gauge it if that's really the case?

If we were Facebook friends, I would expect you to have the cognitive werewithall to vet my posts for yourself, and I would not want a Facebook employee, or a Facebook algorithm, to tell you what to think.

First of all, it clearly does make a difference or else Trump wouldn't have his panties all up in a bunch over it and his idiot minions wouldn't be charged with desperately coming up with any pathetic argument against it.

Trump objects to his posts being personally targeted because it is a blow to Trump's ego.

I don't care about Trump's ego. I just don't want a multibillion dollar social media company to vet my content. I can do that for myself.

Secondly, a "waste of resources" isn't necessarily a harm, even if it were true.

Of course wasting resources is harmful.

So, again, since there is no harm to it and no liar can object and they already do it as a constraint of the medium/technology no matter what, it may as well serve the good.

I'm glad you want multibillion dollar corporations to vet your content. I don't.

 

[bilby]

I'm not arrogant enough ...

Are you sure?

... other, lesser people ...

Because this strongly suggests that you are more than arrogant enough for pretty much anything. (My bold for emphasis).

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not arrogant enough ...

Are you sure?

... other, lesser people ...

Because this strongly suggests that you are more than arrogant enough for pretty much anything. (My bold for emphasis).

It's difficult to believe you are being serious.

Every single person on this thread who wants the fuck-face-coward Zuckerberg to vet content on Facebook has said they don't need their own contents vetted, they can tell blatant lies from the truth. No, content vetting is for the others, the unwashed masses, the lesser people, the people not smart enough.

The third-person effect is alive and well on this board.

I had an extreme-left (he thought the Australian Greens were too conservative for him) former friend who shared, on his Facebook wall, some ludicrous, coded anti-Semitic garbage about the World Bank being owned by the Rothschilds (I wish I'd saved the post).

Anyway, normally when I see eye-rolling garbage like this I dismiss it. But, even though it strained our friendship at the time, I actually pointed out the numerous errors of fact in the post he shared, and he withdrew it and said he would try to do better. But as thoughtlessly as he shared garbage like that that aligned with his worldview, I don't assume Facebook should vet what he put out. Why on earth would I trust Facebook to vet content for me?

 

[bilby]

Are you sure?

Because this strongly suggests that you are more than arrogant enough for pretty much anything. (My bold for emphasis).

It's difficult to believe you are being serious.

Every single person on this thread who wants the fuck-face-coward Zuckerberg to vet content on Facebook has said they don't need their own contents vetted, they can tell blatant lies from the truth. No, content vetting is for the others, the unwashed masses, the lesser people, the people not smart enough.

The third-person effect is alive and well on this board.

I had an extreme-left (he thought the Australian Greens were too conservative for him) former friend who shared, on his Facebook wall, some ludicrous, coded anti-Semitic garbage about the World Bank being owned by the Rothschilds (I wish I'd saved the post).

Anyway, normally when I see eye-rolling garbage like this I dismiss it. But, even though it strained our friendship at the time, I actually pointed out the numerous errors of fact in the post he shared, and he withdrew it and said he would try to do better. But as thoughtlessly as he shared garbage like that that aligned with his worldview, I don't assume Facebook should vet what he put out. Why on earth would I trust Facebook to vet content for me?

What makes you think that anyone has to trust Facebook's (or Twitter's, or anybody's) fact-checking?

A fact check doesn't entail the deletion of the suspect post - just the addition of a warning that it is believed by the content host to be untrue, and ideally a link to evidence of its falsehood.

No trust is required. You are completely at liberty to disbelieve the warning, and/or to confirm or debunk it for yourself.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you sure?

Because this strongly suggests that you are more than arrogant enough for pretty much anything. (My bold for emphasis).

It's difficult to believe you are being serious.

Every single person on this thread who wants the fuck-face-coward Zuckerberg to vet content on Facebook has said they don't need their own contents vetted, they can tell blatant lies from the truth. No, content vetting is for the others, the unwashed masses, the lesser people, the people not smart enough.

The third-person effect is alive and well on this board.

I had an extreme-left (he thought the Australian Greens were too conservative for him) former friend who shared, on his Facebook wall, some ludicrous, coded anti-Semitic garbage about the World Bank being owned by the Rothschilds (I wish I'd saved the post).

Anyway, normally when I see eye-rolling garbage like this I dismiss it. But, even though it strained our friendship at the time, I actually pointed out the numerous errors of fact in the post he shared, and he withdrew it and said he would try to do better. But as thoughtlessly as he shared garbage like that that aligned with his worldview, I don't assume Facebook should vet what he put out. Why on earth would I trust Facebook to vet content for me?

What makes you think that anyone has to trust Facebook's (or Twitter's, or anybody's) fact-checking?

A fact check doesn't entail the deletion of the suspect post - just the addition of a warning that it is believed by the content host to be untrue, and ideally a link to evidence of its falsehood.

No trust is required. You are completely at liberty to disbelieve the warning, and/or to confirm or debunk it for yourself.

There was a web browser add-in (since deleted) that processed any news page you were on and added a red square around the names of authors and by-lines of people known to have a Jewish background. That add-in was deleted, though it seems to me all it was doing was adding information that people were free to ignore.

I'm not going to care much whether Facebook or Twitter (I don't really use the latter) adds 'fact-checking' to their list of 'services', though it would be annoying more than anything. Perhaps they'll give people the option to turn it off, or perhaps there will be some codenerds that can hack it and turn off the feature itself, like blocking ads.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What makes you think that anyone has to trust Facebook's (or Twitter's, or anybody's) fact-checking?

A fact check doesn't entail the deletion of the suspect post - just the addition of a warning that it is believed by the content host to be untrue, and ideally a link to evidence of its falsehood.

No trust is required. You are completely at liberty to disbelieve the warning, and/or to confirm or debunk it for yourself.

There was a web browser add-in (since deleted) that processed any news page you were on and added a red square around the names of authors and by-lines of people known to have a Jewish background. That add-in was deleted, though it seems to me all it was doing was adding information that people were free to ignore.

Seriously dude?

I'm not going to care much whether Facebook or Twitter (I don't really use the latter) adds 'fact-checking' to their list of 'services', though it would be annoying more than anything. Perhaps they'll give people the option to turn it off, or perhaps there will be some codenerds that can hack it and turn off the feature itself, like blocking ads.

I suppose you are free to ignore it then... without the Nazi overtones.

 

[Metaphor]

Seriously dude?

Yes, it was something like this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ople-with-jewish-sounding-names-a7066496.html

Though the timeline doesn't seem right for what I was remembering; I thought it was much longer ago.

I suppose you are free to ignore it then... without the Nazi overtones.

What Nazi overtones?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seriously dude?

Yes, it was something like this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ople-with-jewish-sounding-names-a7066496.html

Though the timeline doesn't seem right for what I was remembering; I thought it was much longer ago.

I suppose you are free to ignore it then... without the Nazi overtones.

What Nazi overtones?

Okay, now you are just obviously trolling.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, it was something like this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ople-with-jewish-sounding-names-a7066496.html

Though the timeline doesn't seem right for what I was remembering; I thought it was much longer ago.



What Nazi overtones?

Okay, now you are just obviously trolling.

No, I'm not trolling. What did I say that had Nazi overtones? If you are referring to the Chrome extension, did you imagine I raised it because I approved of it or used it? I raised it because it's idiotic. Somebody who is afraid of something because a Jew, or suspected Jew, wrote it, is someone categorically unable to discern reason for herself.

I am able to discern things for myself. But even if I were not, the idea that a multibillion dollar Silicon Valley based social media company was best placed to do it for me is the high-water mark of absurdity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, it was something like this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ople-with-jewish-sounding-names-a7066496.html

Though the timeline doesn't seem right for what I was remembering; I thought it was much longer ago.



What Nazi overtones?

Okay, now you are just obviously trolling.

No, I'm not trolling. What did I say that had Nazi overtones? If you are referring to the Chrome extension, did you imagine I raised it because I approved of it or used it? I raised it because it's idiotic. Somebody who is afraid of something because a Jew, or suspected Jew, wrote it, is someone categorically unable to discern reason for herself.

You stated, and I quote, "That add-in was deleted, though it seems to me all it was doing was adding information that people were free to ignore."

Look, it is just a Star of David badge, you can just ignore it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, obviously if you have 300 Facebook friends who post multiple times a day, Facebook filters your feed to what it thinks you want to see.

Wrong, but irrelevant.

If we were Facebook friends, I would expect you to have the cognitive werewithall to vet my posts for yourself, and I would not want a Facebook employee, or a Facebook algorithm, to tell you what to think.

So you concede that the medium has the power to tell people what to think. If not, then it makes no difference if there is a fact checker addendum, so your argument is self-defeating.

I just don't want a multibillion dollar social media company to vet my content. I can do that for myself.

And that's the problem. You think you can, but you actually can't as you have just previously conceded. I could post links to dozens of studies and toss around Dunning-Kruger until we're both exhausted, but I'll just stop with: it's a fact. You cannot, in fact, vet the content of your feed. It has nothing to do with intelligence or media savvy or anything at all to with your cognitive functioning (or malfunctioning).

At least not in the manner you misconstrue. There are a number of different ways I can manipulate you into thinking any number of different things; buy any number of different products; feel any number of different emotions; etc and there would be fuck-all you'd be able to do to stop it or even know it's happening. You are literally being manipulated in a dozen different ways right this very second that have absolutely no intellectual barrier against or ability to discover, let alone contravene.

Secondly, a "waste of resources" isn't necessarily a harm, even if it were true.

Of course wasting resources is harmful.

You put your goalposts too far away there. Move them back to how in the fuck would hiring people to fact-check content be a "waste of resources" that in turn causes some sort of harm? Give an example. Like, Trump says: "If you think you have Covid-19, you should inject yourself with disinfectants." Fact checker notes underneath: "Self-injecting disinfectants will cause immediate death."

And be careful, since it's a trick question that destroys your own argument once again. At worst, it employs a bunch of people.

So, again, since there is no harm to it and no liar can object and they already do it as a constraint of the medium/technology no matter what, it may as well serve the good.

I'm glad you want multibillion dollar corporations to vet your content. I don't.

No one cares.

 

[lpetrich]

Mark Zuckerberg tries to explain his inaction on Trump posts to outraged staff - CNN

(CNN Business)Facebook (FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg sought on Tuesday to ease employee outrage over his inaction on incendiary remarks recently posted by President Donald Trump.

During a company-wide town hall, Zuckerberg struggled to explain his decision-making process as many of his employees, using a real-time feedback tool, reminded him of promises to remove content that calls for violence or that could lead to imminent physical harm.

"It's crystal clear today that leadership refuses to stand with us," Brandon Dail, an engineer at Facebook, tweeted as the town hall was taking place.

Civil rights leaders 'stunned' after call with Zuckerberg

• Civil rights leaders said Zuckerberg gave “incomprehensible explanations” for not taking action against President Trump’s “looting ... shooting” post.
• In his post Friday on Twitter and Facebook, Trump addressed protests over the killing of George Floyd while in police custody, saying, “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
• On Monday, hundreds of Facebook employees took part in a “virtual walkout” in a rare show of opposition within the company.
• The employees shared on Twitter that they were ashamed and upset by their employers’ decision to leave Trump’s post untouched.

Good that some employees are rebelling against the Zuck.

 

[lpetrich]

Zuckerberg stands firm in refusal to moderate Trump Facebook posts

• Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday told employees he was standing firm in the company’s decision not to moderate a post in which President Trump said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
• At least two Facebook employees posted on social media that they were leaving the company as a result of the refusal to moderate Trump.
• Facebook has also been criticized by at least two of its partners.

After Facebook staff walkout, Zuckerberg defends no action on Trump posts - Reuters

Zuckerberg told employees on a video chat that Facebook had conducted a thorough review and was right to leave the posts unchallenged, a company spokeswoman said.

She said Zuckerberg also acknowledged the decision had upset many employees and said the company was looking into “non-binary” options beyond either leaving up such posts or taking them down.