
Zuckerberg Says Twitter Is Wrong to Fact-Check Trump - MaysonL
https://www.newsweek.com/zuckerberg-says-twitter-wrong-fact-check-trump-1506958
======
nsl73
A significant portion of social media posts are filled with simply false
information. I recently got into an argument with someone on Facebook, but
stopped when they admitted they weren’t confident Covid-19 is caused by a
virus.

The level of misinformation has reached a point where I wish I could pay for a
service to fact check my Facebook feed, Twitter feed, YouTube videos, etc. I
wish these platforms would allow third party filters to plug-in to their
platforms and modify feed content and search results. I can imagine many more
uses for these filters such as checking for inappropriate content for children
or avoiding triggering content for trauma survivors. I can imagine a mix of AI
and Humans being involved in these filters, and large number of people
subscribing to popular filters.

~~~
croutonwagon
I find it depressing that people think Twitter Feeds or Facebook feeds or even
reddit posts are information sources. They are at best, opinion sources most
of the time, and at the lest, they are a biased news source that fits a
specific narrative with heavy (and often uninformed) commentary conveniently
directly added in.

This is different from say....an rss feed of actual news sources that, in
theory, are vetting/verifying information for some level of accuracy before
publishing it/posting it.

That doesnt happen on twitter, facebook or youtube, and there is not a
requirement to do so.

Now there is still work to be done by you, the reader, to further vet these
news sources for bias, but if you cant trust the source information then its
entirely worthless.

Thats where something like Feedly or any RSS/aggregator that you can organize
sources and topics should come in. You can still link in some of these
aformentioned sources as well, but you can do so in a way that its obvious
that they are probably containing bad information or heavy bias.

------
Barrin92
Is that Thiel getting his fangs into Zuckerberg again or is Facebook simply
too afraid of the administration to do anything

~~~
9HZZRfNlpR
Or different people have different opinions. Here where I live people who
can't go to vote, like very old, get visited by the certified people and they
check your documentation. Sending out just mail and getting it back screams a
lot of fraud. It's weird that people on HN are against voting online because
it can never be secure but are fine what California is doing.

~~~
NaOH
Colorado has success with mail-in ballots—the state's system is an alternate
approach to what you described where you are[1]—and such ballots have never
been an issue for US military personnel stationed elsewhere.

[1] [https://www.5280.com/2020/05/no-fraud-isnt-rampant-in-
colora...](https://www.5280.com/2020/05/no-fraud-isnt-rampant-in-colorados-
mail-in-voting-system/)

~~~
choko
Could it be that there isn't much fraud around mail-in ballots at the moment
because it's not the primary method of voting and mail in and absentee ballots
aren't always counted? Might this change if mail-in becomes the primary voting
method? It seems pretty undeniable that commiting fraud via mail-in ballots
would be far easier than if voting were mostly in person. We shouldn't wait
for an attack vector to be exploited before securing the vulnerability.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Could it be that there isn't much fraud around mail-in ballots at the moment
> because it's not the primary method of voting and mail in and absentee
> ballots aren't always counted?

There are states where it is the primary method, and they are (other than
overseas absentee ballots, IIRC) in most places counted the same as any other
ballots (provisional ballots aren't always counted, but that's a different
kettle of fish.) In some cases the process results in them being counted
later, which may be after immediate media attention to the counts moves away,
but...

~~~
choko
In what state is mail-in voting accounting for a plurality of votes cast in a
national election? That's the only way you could claim that it's the primary
method in a given state.

Further, mail-in ballots don't tend to lean toward one party or the other at
present, so claiming that it's an attempt at Democrat voter suppression is
disingenuous. 538 recently published an article on the matter. I would link
it, but it's a pain on mobile and I've given you enough info to find the
article yourself. This really is about security, an area in which mail-in
ballots are lacking.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Further, mail-in ballots don't tend to lean toward one party or the other at
> present, so claiming that it's an attempt at Democrat voter suppression is
> disingenuous.

No, claiming it would be _effective_ Democratic voter suppression might be
inaccurate (though the issue isn't “who votes more by mail”, but “who votes by
mail that would not vote if only allowed to vote in-person”, which are _not_
equivalent questions, so the fact you relate doesn't even make that weaker
case.)

But that the motivation is partisan (whatever the evidence is about the likely
effects) comes straight from the horse's mouth:
[https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/trump-voting-by-
mai...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/trump-voting-by-mail-174695)

It's not disingenuous to suggest an actor has a nefarious motive when the
actor explicitly announces that motive, even if there might be evidence that
the act taken would not realize the motivating goal.

~~~
choko
Ok, doesn't change the fact that not adopting vote by mail as a primary method
is not voter suppression. I'm not concerned with intent in this case. It also
doesn't change that vote by mail has a larger attack surface than in-person
voting and is therefore less secure. If voting accessibility is a problem,
expand early in-person voting. Given the current climate, I don't trust that
either side will not try to unduly influence the election using any means they
think that they can get away with.

------
Gatsky
We have just breached the zero integrity event horizon.

------
mimikatz
I agree with Zuckerberg. Fact checking isn't possible as most of these things
aren't "facts" twitter can prove or disprove. The illegal or threat of harm
test seems like a much more reasonable one.

~~~
akmarinov
Surely accusing a person of murder where an investigation has concluded
otherwise can be proven.

~~~
mimikatz
This is exactly what I am getting at. Does it prove otherwise? Can Twitter
know the state of truth about this? Should we tag every post saying OJ did it
with information about the trial and that he was proven innocent? What about
posts about Michael Brown and the Ferguson riots? Courts found the cops
innocent do we need to append the Michael Brown was murdered posts with WELL
ACTUALLY the court found him not to have been murdered FACT CLOSED.

~~~
HeyZuess
I am not sure if twitter established any fact to be true or false, rather
prompted the readers to additional information. Although there might be an
interpretation that the information they pointed to could be bias (in some
way).

------
xbmcuser
In my opinion when it comes to elections politicians should be fact checked.

~~~
slowmovintarget
Yes, by journalists in the press, and perhaps by their opponents. But just
because you sell billboard space, or ad space, doesn't mean you should be
responsible for that fact checking.

There's a reason newspapers would separate out advertising and editorial
content and identify them as such.

The counter argument typically is "but what if no one sees the countervailing
message?!?" Shouldn't such a verdict be affixed to the message as a visual
mark of sin or righteousness?

Counter ideas with ideas, not imprimaturs.

That said, I'd love to have a "No Tweet" litmus test for Presidential
candidates. "I promise, when I'm President, that I will never personally tweet
from my own account."

------
Simulacra
Wow, for once Mark said something rational.

------
kjsingh
quick move to prove themselves to be on the right side of social network
spectrum!

------
rektide
Yet Facebook is very happy to censor the Anti-Trump Project Lincoln group, &
deny them their ads.

[https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-why-facebook-
censored-...](https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-why-facebook-censored-an-
anti-trump-ad/)

------
akmarinov
Zuck looking to get that Trump traffic ...

------
mrlonglong
Zuck is a republican, enough said. Using his company to shove his tongue up
Trump's ass to make money off facilitating mass disinformation just isn't
ethical.

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

