[godelski]

I think one of the issues with this will be how it is linking the correct information. I like the little inclusion before tweets, but there's no sources on them. Then when you scroll down on the tweets I see them in this order: The Hill, WaPo, CNN, a CBS News reporter, a Fortune Magazine reporter, a Vox reporter, Sr Political Reporter for Huffington, ACLU Nebraska, a CNN political correspondent.

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...

[2] https://video.foxnews.com/v/6158607323001#sp=show-clips

[Hankenstein2]

The problem for me, someone who really wants to be in the middle, is that the only conservative leaning news outlet that I believe (no facts in my reporting) does fact based reporting is the Wall Street Journal. If I want news with data and facts I have to go with the "left" leaning papers.

The Washington Examiner and Fox News have been burning their credibility on a daily basis.

[sfj]

> The Washington Examiner and Fox News have been burning their credibility on a daily basis.

Oh really? Name some things they lied about in the last 5 days.

[ewwhite]

Why do you want to be in "the middle"?

[travisjungroth]

Why do you want to be in the middle?

[jolux]

In what sense are CBS, CNN, and the Washington Post hard left?

[godelski]

> In what sense are CBS, CNN, and the Washington Post hard left?

>> The issue here is that everything here is considered the hard left of the media by Fox viewers.

Maybe the edit here makes the statement clearer because before it was implicit.

[jolux]

I'm still not seeing the edit, but honestly Fox News viewers seeing CBS as substantively representing the left in any capacity is a large part of the problem here. Fortunately not everyone who matters believes only Fox News and nothing else.

[godelski]

The edit was "by Fox News viewers" which was previously implicit. To them these are hard left, but to moderates and the left they aren't. It is a matter of perspective.

> but honestly Fox News viewers seeing CBS as substantively representing the left in any capacity is a large part of the problem here.

This is something I agree with and is actually the crux of my post.

[jolux]

Hmmm, okay. I missed your point then. My bad.

[godelski]

Apparently, given how many downvotes I have, you aren't alone. Given that I'm agreeing with a lot of people that are arguing with me, I'm pretty sure it was my messaging. I think part of that is that since we are so politicized and language requires us to fill in parts that because I tried to dampen it to those on the right that it came off as supporting them.

Pretty much my point was: this links to only stuff on the left and so it gives the right an easy target to point to to continue with their claim (which I believe is false) that the left media is trying to control the people.

[henriquez]

I think it’s more fair to characterize them as corporatist and neoconservative/neoliberal. If the mainstream media were actually left-wing they would be propagandizing for Bernie Sanders. Instead they’re propagandizing in favor of old-guard politicians like Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi. But no matter how you slice it, it’s still propaganda.

I agree with the parent commenter that this will only backfire, likely causing the opposite of intended effect on undecided voters. Tech companies like Twitter are not in a position to play arbiters on what is factual and what isn’t. And I think it’s really dangerous both for people to expect tech companies to assume this mantle and also to expect them to do a good (or honest) job of it.

[jolux]

I'm not sure why you think there's an intended effect here other than "maybe get a few people who are more on the fence to read something real and make it look like Twitter is Doing Something TM." I would hardly be surprised if it succeeded at those things.

[henriquez]

“The facts” on mail-in ballots are mostly opinions though. It’s presumptuous of a tech company to insert themselves into public discourse to correct what they perceive as wrongthink, and it invites a dangerous situation where a few tech companies can enforce discourse that suits their political biases. Just because people may agree with them in this case doesn’t make it a good idea long term. To me this looks like a slippery slope into fascism.

[jolux]

The facts about voter fraud aren’t opinions, though, and the fact is that it’s extremely rare. What reason do we have to expect that mail-in ballots will make it common to the extent it influences an election?

[root_axis]

This problem is turtles all the way down, there is no trusted apolitical arbiter of the facts, you either believe twitter is making a best-effort attempt to curtail misinformation or you believe they're exercising a political agenda under the guise of curtailing misinformation.

[godelski]

The issue here is that the people that already believe in these sources already think the president is lying. On the other hand, people that think the president is telling the truth aren't going to believe those sources. So what does this do? Are there that many people on the fence? Because everyone I know in the middle already thinks this is laughable (Utah votes by mail and every Republican in CA I know votes from home!), those on the left think it is about voter suppression, and those on the right think it is about voter integrity.

While I don't disagree with the program, I'm also not sure what it solves.

[root_axis]

Twitter's rebuke has consequences in the larger culture war battle being fought online, it's an acknowledgement from twitter hq that they view Trump's behavior as a violation of twitter rules even though they are not willing to go so far as to ban or suspend him since he's the president. This is as much about PR as anything else since twitter has come under increased pressure to take some kind of action with regard to Trump's conduct on the site.

[trophycase]

None of those news outlets you mentioned are "hard left". They are corporatist status quo. They are all in support of Joe Biden who is hardly "left" at all

[dmoy]

Left for American politics at least I guess. "Left" in America is right of center in most other western countries.

It's a relative measure - left compared to Fox. Not left compared to SZ or Haaretz.

[sfj]

He is the opposing candidate of the current president, however. And why should we trust news outlets that are blatantly in favor of one candidate over another, and bury stories that look bad for their favored candidate?

[godelski]

>> The issue here is that everything here is considered the hard left of the media by Fox viewers.

Maybe the edit here makes the statement clearer because before it was implicit.