[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?