Sadly the warning doesn't appear when a tweet is embedded, only when you see it in your feed.
Can we also start seeing something similar on UK Govt & Tory tweets, and anything from Cummings.
Twitter has for the first time acted on inaccurate tweets made by US president Donald Trump. Trump on Tuesday took to the avian network with the following pair of tweets. ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people …
Can we also start seeing something similar on UK Govt & Tory tweets, and anything from Cummings.
The absence of the #mediascum hashtag is probably a sufficient marker.
I haven't previously paid much attention to Twitter and still don't have an account, but it's been quite fascinating to see the social-media-fuelled "culture war" eat itself over the last week or so.
UK Govt & Tory tweets,
And Labour ones, and let's not forget the DUP and Sinn Féin, and Sturgeon of course.
Or maybe we should just exercise that most uncommon of skills, common sense?
We've needed an Advertising Watchdog (or more likely, an Attackdog) governing Political mrssages for some time. Spin was bad enough, but it's reached twist, verging on the fevered ravings of foaming madmen.
Yes, a culture of accountability should apply to all. Then again, I've yet to see anything from any leading UK politician that comes anywhere near the shit the Trump posts on a daily basis.
In the long run, I don't think it matters that much, because I don't think a lot of people take Twitter that seriously. Trump seems to use the medium to court controversy which ends up shoring up his base.
Over 80% of people in Scots approve of Scotgov messaging and hence Sturgeon's messaging. Her handling is less but still positive due to over reliance on WM info and strategies. We are diverging properly now, we just need to be able to close our border to those unleashed in England. Warning Polis Scotland is on the lookout for lockdown tourists so don't try and cross the border.
Cummings boosted breakings seem nil to scant up here. We disapprove of him by a huge margin.
"Twitter’s anti-porn filters have blocked Dominic Cummings’ name... "
Anyway, if postal ballot fraud doesn't work, there's plenty of other methods to fall back on. This bloke pretty much ran the gamut. It almost deserves a 'well done'.
The Election Commissioner upheld a number of the allegations, including:
Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses
False statements made against Mr Rahman's rival Mr Biggs
Bribery: large amounts of money were given to organisations who were "totally ineligible or who failed to meet the threshold for eligibility"
Treating: providing free food and drink to encourage people to vote for Mr Rahman
Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman. Mr Mawrey cited a letter signed by 101 Imams in Bengali stating it was people's "religious duty" to vote.
Do you have evidence of this?
UK (and also in the US I assume) postal ballots are counted locally, with direct oversight by election officials appointed by locally elected representatives following a very clear set of rules.
There is no 'company' doing the counting.
Mail-in ballots would be hand-counted by the township/city clerk (or possibly county clerk; could vary by state).
In-person ballots are generally tabulated with some kind of machine. The kinds I am familiar with optically scan the ballot for validness/completeness as it is sucked into the locked storage bin. The visible "valid vote" counter increments, and the machine's results are taken at the end of the day, with the paper ballots stored for verification if necessary.
So, if anything, voting in person involves a machine made by a company, but mailing it in generally only involves the US Postal Service, and if they mess with the ballot it is immediately invalidated. Seems trustworthy enough to me!
>>>Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman. Mr Mawrey cited a letter signed by 101 Imams in Bengali stating it was people's "religious duty" to vote.<<<
Were these two statement separate or in the same letter? there's a very big difference, it's not clear in the BBC article.
Rahman was just one of many local london electees mentioned in Private Eye over the years.
What made Rahman special is that he was continually mentioned in Private Eye over the years.
IIRC he even threatened to sue and got the Arkel v. Pressdram response, which is shorthand for "Feel free, hope you've got deep pockets as we can prove every bloody word.".
For the avoidance of doubt:-
"In the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), the plaintiff was the subject of an article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." Private Eye responded: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off." In the years following, the magazine would refer to this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal, for example: "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"."
Surprisingly, ElReg has failed to see the real problem here:
"The President has, in retaliation, threatened to close down Twitter and other social networks, even though he can't"
yes, he can: social media benefit from a legal protection (Section 230 I think) which puts them in the box of "information platforms" and not "information editors". In short, it means that they only relay messages from users between them, and don't, themselves, create information like newspapers do. But by doing just that, editing messages of a user to other users, Twitter has stepped out of that role and became editors, not only a platform, and they can loose that protection (Section 230)
In other words, this could end Twitter for real.
What I don't understand: why do some people (including ElReg) think that Twitter, Facebook and co. are some special constructs ? They are only advertising platforms that disguise as messaging services, and it would be very easy to target them and bring them to their knees: it's enough to apply to them the rules that apply to other advertisement organisations, and they're dead. And nobody would cry after them.
> the continual tweeting by Trump
A very important rule of propaganda states that anything you repeat often enough eventually becomes a generally admitted truth.
In the past this required the use of media and could get expensive, but nowadays Internet allows anybody and his friends to change history with a few clicks, for free.
Internet allows anybody and his friends to attempt to change history with a few clicks
If I might draw your attention to the comments section of this post:
It would appear that a significant proportion of Americans now believe that the Nazi Party was a Left-wing political organisation. Now that's a triumph of the internet over history if ever there was one.
Depends whether you view a centrally directed economy as left wing, or believe that an authoritarian regime must be right wing
Or maybe, you could accept that authoritarian regimes can be of any political stripe, and thus Fascists and Communists are the polar opposites.
Yes, I do accept that entirely - have an upvote (in fact it was precisely the point I was making).
So we agree that authoritarian does not make someone right wing, but applies to both left and right wing (therefore the Nazi's are not right wing because they were authoritarian, even though they clearly were authoritarian).
And you appear to accept that they had a centrally directed economy, since you sensibly didn't dispute it, nor did you dispute that a centrally directed economy is left wing.
So what definition of right wing are you using?
It's clearly not authoritarianism (which is neither left nor right)
It's clearly not economic policy.
Personally, I don't call them left wing or right wing, and will happy argue with anybody that uses either label - they were just evil.
"I don't call them left wing or right wing"
Your choice, but they are considered right wing because of the affinities they had. Nazis loathed socialists and communists (both very active in Germany at that time), and the right wing parties in Europe initially liked them (at least until Hitler parked his tanks on their lawns).
Your criteria are very USA-centric: Size of and centrality of government are specifically American problems no one else has. In Europe they don't really care about the size of their government, and there are countries with very centralized governments, like for instance France (heritage of the time of kings (Louis XIV), not a sign of latent communism...).
>and the right wing parties in Europe
Again, what is your definition of 'right wing'? Without it, this turns into a circular argument: "this party are right wing because they liked that party, and that party are right wing because they liked this party".
Also, loathing of people that share you same basic philosophy, but with some (possibly subtle, from an external point of view) differences, is entirely normal and often a lot more vehement than opposition to people with entirely different beliefs (as demonstrated by a long history of civil and religious wars)
"what is your definition of 'right wing'?"
Mine is the generally accepted one, but what your definitions of "left wing" and "right wing"?
Since you seem to reject, or at least question the generally accepted definitions, you have to offer some clarification, without this there is no communication possible.
It would appear that a significant proportion of Americans now believe that the Nazi Party was a Left-wing political organisation.
Perhaps understandable for the flag-saluters, given the long years of paranoia about communism.
'National-Socialist' National is all about patriotism, and they're ok with that, so the Socialist bit must be the problem.
Socialist = Communist and Communists = Evil
Evil = Nazis and Nazis = Socialists (because they said they were)
It's really confusing when people say they're something they aren't.
> Internet allows anybody and his friends to attempt to change history
At what point the attempt might be considered successful?
It happens often that "official" channels are saying things (most) people know not to be true, because they still know/remember the truth and the context. Problem is that after some time that context will have been lost (except for people willing to jump through hoops and do serious research), and we'll be left with the statements of the "official" channel still standing there, unchallenged. They will de facto become truth.
Note "the official channel" could belong to a lot of governments, past and present, since many of them were/are doing it to some extend, the current US president is just hugely, well, let's say "less subtle" about it.
"The First Amendment makes it illegal to make a law that establishes a religion, stops the freedom of speech, stops people from practicing their religion, stops the press from printing what they want, and stops people from exercising their right to assemble peacefully or demonstrating against the government."
309 characters, but I got it from a civics site aimed at elementary school kids so it should almost be within Trump's ability to understand.
You have to summarize the points and include a clarification that many people seem not to realize. My suggestion is this:
The first amendment means the government can't make what you say illegal, but other places can decide what you can say on their platform.
That's for the 140 character limit. If I'm allowed to go to 280, I'd include the following clearer version:
The first amendment stops the government from denying you the freedom to say or write things, but the government can still restrict your actions while you say those things and private organizations can decide what you are allowed to say when you're on their platform.
It doesn't cover the other rights granted by the amendment, but it at least gets the point of "freedom of speech" through.
Don't know where your weird version comes from, but the real version is 273 characters at most.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
George Floyd, RIP
A long time ago I was with a female activist with MS in a wheelchair, we were breaking into a nuclear military base but caught at the fence so no real threat. And the MoD plod arresting her started hurting her - not me, just her. She said to me, "Don't do anything". The smirking MoD fraud arresting me said, "Are you going to do anything?", obviously trying to prompt a violent response.
I said, "Aye. My family isn't poor, I'm politically connected and my brother in law is a QC. Unless you stop your colleague immediately I will make sure you are both sacked, prosecuted and sued. You will lose your houses and be unemployable".
That worked. It's surprising how reasonable people can be when you reach out on their level.
So did you intend to get arrested at the fence line, or was your intention to keep going until they shot you dead, so that your politically connected family could complain?
Unidentified people trying to get to (nuclear weapons store?)? Yup, shooting dead is quite reasonable. The fence is there to keep innocent people out.
Oh, and my family were never politically connected, I was.
One of the first times I visited the peace camp I drove Fungus down to the Helensburgh Co-op to buy cheap bread. I had two bags of it so I moved to one side to make space as she finished packing and paying. A wee jobsworth pocket Hitler put their hand on my shoulder and warned me sternly not to run. I reached into my jeans and handed her £500, and told her if I ran she could keep that.
For years I didn't realise people were treating me with respect because I was successful, I just thought people were nice. Not so.
The weird versions are trying to explain what it means. Many don't seem to realize the "Congress shall make no law" part; they think that there should be no limits whatsoever. For example, all the people who get very annoyed when someone tells them to leave a private place where they have been lecturing without permission. The explanations are attempting to state this in clearer language because those people either never read the text or don't understand what it means.
Reseed the epidemic. Force voting in person. Cancel the vote in 3 Republican states citing 'safety'. Force the Republican Supreme Court moderates into backing the choice 'for safety' and suppressing the election. Trump refuses hand over of power, has his little militia to support him while blocking law enforcement via Barr.
We're at the situation now where Republicans are trying to kill mail in ballot measures to force in person voting.
And this is why Republican states are opening prematurely and suppressing the Covid numbers.
They know they're opening up with a higher level of epidemic than in March, they know the projections for a second wave would kill quarter of a million Americans, they know those dead will be old, and tend to be Republican voters. Do you think for a second there was ever a plan to hold an in-person election that would require old Republican voters to personally put themselves at risk of death to vote?
Of course not, the intention is to kill enough voters to let Republicans suppress the election.
It's a coup, recognize it for what it is. A full on Republican coup.
Oh, an if you're a Fox News viewer, realize the anti- face mask agenda, the anti-lockdown agenda, all of that is to kill you. You're the at-risk people that will die if they get their way. Their lies are intended to result in your death. Turn over the channel. You are not 'saving the economy' by sacrificing yourself. You're being sacrificed so that Republicans don't ever need to face another election again ever.
False dichotomy. You don't make more money by keeping an epidemic going. The sooner its done the sooner you get back to normal. The sooner the economy picks up.
The older you are the more likely to die of Corona virus you are:
And the older you are the more skewed to Republican votes you are:
"A new survey is finding that the only group voting Republican by a majority are those 65 and older."
Republican voters don't matter to Republican leadership. They don't want you voting by mail from the safety of your home, they want you to go, in person to a polling station, cast a vote in the middle of an epidemic, surrounded by coughing people not wearing masks breathing their plague down your neck.
All of these things, promoted on Fox News to its viewers, spewed by Republican bots and Facebook Russian marketing companies. "Masks are Burkhas", "Social Distancing is oppression", "Quarantine is tyranny".... Republican gibberish.
Even Paul Manasfort is out of jail (his prison sentence runs to November, 2024, he was released early by the justice department than risk 'corona virus'!). The man that put the Russian puppet into Ukraine is out ready for the next US election.
So old folks must visit a polling station, but Manasfort must not visit his prison cell.
All so they can cancel the election in 3 or more states and force the election to be annulled, a coup.
Interesting points, and possibly one or more of them are true. But here is the real point, as proffered by Norman Goldman (one of the very few Progressive radio personalities in the USofA): when "progressives" vote, they win. And tRump, has effectively stated so himself, when he stated that (paraphrasing) if you allow vote-by-mail, the USofA would never elect another Republican again.1 You see, tRump is scared to fekkin' death that allowing vote by mail would make it easier to vote, and if voting is easier, then more voters will vote, and if more voters vote, progressives win, fuckheads lose. And since trump is the Fuckhead-in-Chief...well, you can do the math.
1A proposition countered by the results of the most recent California Congressional special election, but hey, tRump wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good story....
Sir! I am a representative of the law offices of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. We have been hired by the International Association of Orange Idiots to protect their reputation online. They are not now, and never have been, associated with DJT. Please cease and desist from implying that there is a connection. Thank you.
Actually, Twitter doesn't have to actually publish them outside of a very small number of known addresses, and likewise, only allow those tweets to be retweeted to an equally small number of known addresses. Twitter could effectively allow the Twit-in-Chief to assume he was having the huge influence he's been having, while providing him and his associates in Twittery and their associates with a huge echo chamber for none but themselves.
It's the way contagious diseases are confined.
This post has been deleted by its author
Rumour in the NSA is that, to meet his requirement for the technical capability to shut down all social media, the techs are making a box with a switch and a red light on it (containing a long-life battery to power the light... errrm, I mean loads of secret components...) to go with the Etch-A-Sketch (errrm, I mean nuclear launch command module) that he already has.
Does the Fuckhead-in-Chief understand that if he somehow does manage to shut down Twatter, that he will effectively cut off his own oxygen supply, and that his head will explode form the pent up pressure to lie and deceive dozens/hundreds of times each day with no available outlet?
Citizens United went to court and the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights to free speech as everyone else. This was seen as a victory in republican circles, as "Big Government" could no longer "trample" on the constitutional rights of filthy rich people.
And now this. Funny how things change.
If you wonder why Kavanaugh was chosen for the Supreme Court, it was all about PAC money. He did an opinion which expanded 'Citizen United' ruling so that agents of foreign governments (e.g. Oligarchs) could fund PACs without fear of criminal prosecution.
Those foreign entities don't keep records of where the money goes or arrives from. Meaning you cannot follow the money:
Billsky Barr dropped the case against this Russian troll farm that did not keep records:
So, in your head you might think Kavanaugh is all about 'pro-life', but even if it means hundreds of thousands of deaths, Republican deaths even, you're about to find its about money and power.
Hypothetical question. Suppose Justice Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court are ruling on mail-in ballots, and a massive amount of money arrives from a Russian Oligarch into Kavanaughs family bank account via one of these front companies.
Would Bill Barr investigate it? Would Bill Barr block Congress from investigating. Would Moscow Mitch support impeachment of Kavanaugh?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Nobody cares about your votes. They don't need them now.
I find it hilarious to see those double/triple tweet posts, just because tweeter is limited to 140 chars ?
And the lunatic wouldn't even do anything outside of this limited media ...
Also, for voting, sorry lads, voting online, although indeed more healthy, just doesn't work if you care about democracy. It is just a way to change all votes after they've been posted ... I've yet to see anything vaguely more secure than a transparent urn with a counter and a legal minimum of 2 council people looking after it for the whole process duration.
> It is just a way to change all votes after they've been posted
And how would an urn prevent that? At some point you have to open that urn, after what everything depends on the honesty of the people involved just the same. (Not to mention the possibility of the simple outright lie (x counted, y announced, sorry, can't recount).)
Voting is a question of trust, people need to be able to trust the procedures used to be honest and not allow fraud (or at least make it very difficult). Depending on culture, this restricts more or less the choices of voting method, since what might be possible in a honest culture would be a catastrophe in a culture prone to fraud.
Unfortunately during the last century the societal ideal has slipped from "be upright and honest" to just "don't get caught"...
"And how would an urn prevent that? At some point you have to open that urn, after what everything depends on the honesty of the people involved just the same. (Not to mention the possibility of the simple outright lie (x counted, y announced, sorry, can't recount).)"
Sure, but by making sure the urn is not a single minute with only one people, you lower the risk. Simply because you need multiple corrupted people to tamper with the results.
With electronic voting (or postal), a single clever dude can change results ...
The article alleges that evidence of Election Fraud in the USA is 'hard to find".
Only if one is an absolute dolt with zero web search skills.
Their "sources" demonstrating a lack of evidence are media outlets with a persistent and pernicious bias against the current POTUS. These "sources" fail to acknowledge easily available statistical evidence of massive fraud in the 2016 Federal Election where multiple precincts in multiple states reported more votes cast than the total number of Registered Voters, to cite one easily researched group of evidence. "Interestingly" every single one of these anomalous precincts voted for the Democrat Candidate. There's another class of precincts from the same election where the ballots showed the statistically 'highly unlikely" [IE real world impossibility] of not a single ballot being cast for the Republican Candidate.
There are multiple public statements that will turn up on a web search of various politicians over the last 30 years stating in interview that such a scheme as is currently being proposed will inevitably result in massive voting fraud.
Twitter is setting itself up for a Federal Takeover as it is no longer acting as a platform for public discourse but is exercising "Editorial Authority" that will loose it any claim to "First Amendment Protection" and will cause it to be brought under the regulation and control of the various Public Utility Statutes and Regulations.
The stockholders will not be amused by the subsequent loos of value such an exercise of Federal Oversight will cause.
Nuke bomb Icon because of the volatile nature of this topic and it's ramifications for all of Social Media.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020