by l31g on 5/26/20, 10:41 PM with 284 comments
by User23 on 5/27/20, 12:21 AM
So, let's consider if such fraud could possibly be substantial. Let'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 "California vote fraud as as service" as a side gig. Let's disrupt the electoral process for a billion dollar valuation!
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.
[2] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/more-than-80-bal...
[3] https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
by hadrien01 on 5/26/20, 11:51 PM
It's a sort of article (I didn't know Twitter had this type of format, I really like it, weirdly enough) that contains an introduction text and a 'What you need to know' paragraph, followed by fact-checking tweets from press organizations.
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?
by Barrin92 on 5/26/20, 11:28 PM
by blockmarker on 5/27/20, 6:34 AM
by root_axis on 5/26/20, 11:36 PM
by 11thEarlOfMar on 5/26/20, 11:40 PM
by xeeeeeeeeeeenu on 5/26/20, 11:52 PM
>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.
I'm sorry, but that so-called "fact checking" looks like a classic case of "Trump said something is bad, so we must defend that thing at all costs".
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
by __s on 5/27/20, 6:14 AM
No need to censor, only offer a second opinion
by im3w1l on 5/27/20, 9:58 AM
Someone: I don't trust the establishment
Establishment fact checker: FALSE. The establishment is perfectly trustworthy.
Maybe we need to start talking about The Right to be Suspicious or something.
by hhs on 5/26/20, 11:26 PM
by runawaybottle on 5/26/20, 11:38 PM
by sj4nz on 5/26/20, 11:42 PM
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.
by jerkstate on 5/26/20, 11:32 PM
by Simulacra on 5/28/20, 4:52 PM
by blhack on 5/26/20, 11:47 PM
It's not 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.
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's ridiculous.
Here's some spitballing: (eh, I removed this. I don't think brainstorming how to committ election fraud is a good idea. I'm assuming that readers of hacker news can probably figure out some relatively obvious ways of casting doubt into the outcome of a mail in election)
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?
Remember the Iowa caucus? That was a hastily put together vote reporting system, not even meant for tallying, and look at what a disaster it was. Now we're expecting that states will radically alter their voting system, in 5 months, and that it won't be vulnerable to interference?
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.
But it doesn't have to be so polar. I like mail in voting, obviously, but I'm not so stupid as to think that it cannot possibly be criticized. I am a hacker after all.
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'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.
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: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
Here’s a quote from the article:
>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.
and another:
> Election experts say the challenges created by mailed ballots could well affect outcomes this fall and beyond.
And another:
> 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
So who is to be believed here? Twitter? The New York Times? Why aren’t the experts from this article being listened to?
by CawCawCaw on 5/28/20, 3:23 AM
by Rebelgecko on 5/26/20, 11:45 PM
[1]:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12654275381401886...
by 2019-nCoV on 5/27/20, 2:39 AM
> ....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!
Whelp, it was fun while it lasted.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12654275381401886...
by 2019-nCoV on 5/27/20, 12:10 AM
There is no way to be sure if mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
by Fjolsvith on 5/27/20, 3:09 AM
by no_carrier on 5/26/20, 11:37 PM
This morning? He doesn't seem to be on the front page at all... the first result is for a search done on twitter.con for 'donald trump twitter', the next result is for the POTUS account. I would say this fact checking thing has had a knock on effect to search results.
by slg on 5/26/20, 11:35 PM
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't?
by Simulacra on 5/28/20, 5:41 AM
by quxbar on 5/27/20, 2:14 AM
by rurban on 5/27/20, 5:48 AM
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.
Please fact check the fact check warnings, and beware of dependent media.
by godelski on 5/26/20, 11:42 PM
The issue here is that everything here is considered in the hard left of the media. I'm concerned that this will only help grow the divide between Americans, though I also don'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 "fox news mail in ballot" pulls up [0][1][2]. So when you see things like this I think it is easier to say that "the left" 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'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've trusted for a long time is lying to them, especially when there's nuggets of truth that you can hold onto.
So I'm a little worried about the repercussions of this, especially since the right already thinks Twitter is supporting the left.
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'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.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/voter-fraud-california-man-...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-carolina-election-bal...
by Balgair on 5/27/20, 12:25 AM
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's been a battle with users, but everyone seems to just grumble along.
That policy has worked up until today.
A lot of work went into this decision. They A/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't the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's also not a rusty shovel. They red-teamed this a fair bit, I'd imagine. They must have known that Donny would not view it favorably and would do exactly what he is doing currently.
All the same they went ahead and decided to make the move at the end of May, ~6 months before the 'fit hits the shan'.
Why?
Their stock is, well, fairly ok. Jack seems to be doing alright. Monthly users are flat-ish since 2015, but compared to FB, it's a bit of a wash.