[meragrin]

If YouTube does as good a job as Facebook, then I have zero faith it won't just become partisan censorship. I have seen "False Information" labels on Facebook posts which were linked to "fact checking articles" which confirmed the post as true rather than false.

[cjohnson318]

Can you share examples?

[umvi]

Hunter Biden story suppression comes to mind a few months back. Stories were technically true (or at least mostly true) but fact checkers were going crazy labelling stories as false to suppress propagation.

[cjohnson318]

Saying something is "technically true" or "at least mostly true" is a red flag. Try saying these out loud:

  1. Try this sushi, it's mostly fresh.
  2. Sure, I'll give you a ride, I'm mostly sober.
  3. I know what I'm doing, I'm technically a doctor.

[umvi]

Every article is going to have some statements not 100% true. Would you rather fact checkers flag mostly true articles or mostly false articles? If one grain of rice in the bag is bad, is the whole bag bad? How about 2 grains of rice? 20 grains? Where is the line drawn at which a fact checker should label the article as false or partly false?

What I've seen this last election on Facebook is partisan fact checkers hunting for that one bad grain of rice so they can use it to label the whole article as "false" or "partly false" in an effort to protect Biden/Harris. I'm having trouble finding them now because facebook isn't super searchable but I remember thinking a lot of them were really nit-picky, similar to this one from 2018[0]. It got so bad I started seeing various viral memes complaining about it[1]

[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon...

(Context: Trump tweeted that "crooked Hillary destroyed her phones with a hammer", Snopes labels his tweet as partly false because Hillary personally didn't destroy her phones with a hammer, her aide did)

[1] https://imgur.com/a/1Job9xX

[cjohnson318]

Regarding rice, if your serving is sufficiently rancid to make you sick, then the bag is bad.

And yet, you were able to read on Snopes why they flagged something as "partially true", and you were able to make an informed decision.

When someone says "Hillary Clinton is using private email servers and unauthorized phones," that's technically true, and it sounds really, very bad. But when you learn that previous officials, like Colin Powell, and current officials, like members of the Trump family, did the same thing, then it provides more context, and it makes you wonder just how egregious the original charge is.

The point is, "technically true" things are often intentionally misleading; the fact that something is "technically true" should arouse more suspicion than trust.

I hear you calling out fact checkers that provide insight into why something is flagged true or false, but I don't hear you calling out officials that make misleading "technically true" statements, or totally false statements. What's up with that? Are fact checkers really the root of this problem, or are they a symptom?

[meragrin]

There was a post remarking about how China did not need a vaccine to get covid under control. Facebook flagged it as false information. They linked to an article which talked extensively about how China used lockdowns, contact tracing, masks, hand washing, and other things which were clearly not vaccines to get covid under control. Most of the vaccine talk was about anti-vaxxers and how Chinese weren't like that. There was a short blurb about how Chinese vaccines were still in phase 3 trials with several hundred thousand people given the vaccine. That's not going to make a big dent in California let alone China. None of the articles the "fact checking" article linked to even mentioned vaccines when talking about how China got it under control.

[cable2600]

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

YouTube had security camera videos posted by members that showed taking mail in ballots from under the table rather than the counting bins. Stuff like that was called false or inaccurate. I cannot say if this mail in vote did the same across the USA, but it shows that the voting process is flawed that and the Dominion software flipping votes from Trump to Biden by mistake.

[malcolmgreaves]

Jesus christ, it's because they opened the envelopes, but needed to go on a break, so they put them in secured bins.and put those under the table.

[splintercell]

That's not what happened though, there's a 14 hour video feed.

These workers announced that they're closing the count for the night and that everyone must leave. You can see them in the video just sitting still not doing anything until everyone leaves. Then when poll watchers leave they spring into action pull out the ballots from under the table and start counting for three more hours.

[throwmeaway4853]

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/video-doesnt-show-suitcase...

>state officials told us that the full video shows the supposed “suitcases” were actually standard containers used to secure ballots, and that the ballots in question were opened and prepared for counting earlier in the night in full view of observers.

>On Dec. 5, Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state’s office, said in an affidavit that after reviewing the video and conducting interviews, her investigators found “that observers and media were not asked to leave” but “simply left” after they saw workers, whose job was to open the ballots, leave. She said the investigation remains open.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state’s office

We investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing.

The Secretary was DIRECTLY involved in the purchase and deployment of the Dominion machines. He is refusing any signature audits. He is now being sued by GA Legislature members.

Despite what FactCheck dot org says (and how could that possibly not be trustworthy!?) I don’t think a statement from this office is going to sway anyone.

How about this, here is footage from a GA official showing just how ridiculously insecure and awful the dominion software is.

This changed my opinion on the whole mess:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CAKyyObls&feature=youtu.be

[throwmeaway4853]

There's nothing in that video that suggests the process is any more or less error-prone than a hand count.

No evidence will sway someone who's accepted one side as truth before hearing all the arguments.

[tigershark]

Stop spreading misinformation please. It’s revolting enough that you eat this propaganda hook, line and sinker. Seeing that you are also spreading it is disgusting.

[ghostwriter]

> On Dec. 5, Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state’s office, said in an affidavit that after reviewing the video and conducting interviews, her investigators found “that observers and media were not asked to leave” but “simply left” after they saw workers, whose job was to open the ballots, leave.

That's a futile affidavit. Where are affidavits from the investigators and the precinct staff members themselves, where they say that observers and media were not asked to leave.