Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The 2020 Election Interference Plan

 

Today the President has been rightfully very vocal about Twitter’s decision to fact-check him, after years of tolerating vicious non-factual assaults on the President, as well as upon anyone else who does not bow to Progressive Orthodoxy. And the head of Twitter’s “integrity” unit is so confident he openly expresses his contempt and hatred for everything Trump.

This is part of a larger pattern in the social media universe. Right after the 2016 elections, senior executives at Google (also owners of YouTube) and Facebook (also owners of Instagram) pledged they would do everything they could to not have that result again. And it is not just the executives; the activist employees of these companies are pushing hard for censorship of opposing views. I think you will see over the next few months a more active attempt by these platforms to alter algorithms, to use “fact checks” to create false narratives, and to resort to outright censorship, in order to assure victory in 2020.

They’ve constructed an elaborate closed ecosystem to rationalize their plans. Use leftist groups like Politifact to “fact check,” classify media outlets like the New York Times as presumptively credible, and allow real hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify “hate groups” which can then be used to limit their access to social media.

I would be interested in what any of you are hearing or reading about efforts to combat this.

UPDATE: After posting this, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, spoke to Fox News and commented on Twitter’s actions, “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything people say online”.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 11 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Franco Member
    Franco Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    We are in epistemological recursion.

    Fact checking is now just another layer of spin.

    Me, I’ve reserved the name, super_ultra_factcheck.com for ultimate dominance of factchecking brands. The go-to site for facts that are actual facts, and science that agrees with my opinion, and the truth. The real truth, because we know things. – the company vision

    I feel like I’m in stupidland sometimes. Not you guys…. but really? 

    • #1
    • May 27, 2020, at 4:22 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  2. Flicker Coolidge

    Andrew Kleven has a good take on this. When the telephone first came out, people weren’t allowed to listen in on your phone call to your friend and interrupt and say, “I hear that, and you’re wrong.”

    In the same way, these few giant internet and social media behemoths shouldn’t be allowed to do that either.

    • #2
    • May 27, 2020, at 6:07 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  3. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I’m old fashioned enough that I wish I could disagree with Gumby Mark. I can’t; he nailed it. 

    • #3
    • May 27, 2020, at 7:31 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  4. Mark Camp Member

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…: Today the President has been rightfully very vocal about Twitter’s decision to fact-check him, after years of tolerating vicious non-factual assaults on the President, as well as upon anyone else who does not bow to Progressive Orthodoxy.

    It is never wrong to check the factual accuracy of a statement, is it?

    • #4
    • May 28, 2020, at 9:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…: Today the President has been rightfully very vocal about Twitter’s decision to fact-check him, after years of tolerating vicious non-factual assaults on the President, as well as upon anyone else who does not bow to Progressive Orthodoxy.

    It is never wrong to check the factual accuracy of a statement, is it?

    Yes, it can be wrong.

    • #5
    • May 28, 2020, at 10:05 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    To add a note to my post, the one I’m most concerned about is Google because of how many people rely upon its search function, its control of YouTube, and its ability to subtlely and in hard to detect ways to influence users.

    • #6
    • May 28, 2020, at 10:09 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  7. RightAngles Member

    I’ve never been more alarmed. one glance at Reddit tells me that the number of people who have zero idea of the truth far outweighs those who are aware. They routinely quote Politifact and the NY Times et al as arbiters of Truth. They have NO IDEA.

    • #7
    • May 28, 2020, at 11:45 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  8. Flicker Coolidge

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…: Today the President has been rightfully very vocal about Twitter’s decision to fact-check him, after years of tolerating vicious non-factual assaults on the President, as well as upon anyone else who does not bow to Progressive Orthodoxy.

    It is never wrong to check the factual accuracy of a statement, is it?

    Facts are always in dispute. It is up to the individual to sort things out, not to a few corporate mega-corporations with their own agenda and their own loyalty to shareholders.

    • #8
    • May 28, 2020, at 1:12 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. Mark Camp Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…: Today the President has been rightfully very vocal about Twitter’s decision to fact-check him, after years of tolerating vicious non-factual assaults on the President, as well as upon anyone else who does not bow to Progressive Orthodoxy.

    It is never wrong to check the factual accuracy of a statement, is it?

    Facts are always in dispute. It is up to the individual to sort things out, not to a few corporate mega-corporations with their own agenda and their own loyalty to shareholders.

    True. That is why I ask, ‘is it ever wrong–meaning for anyone, even a corporate mega-corporation–to check the factual accuracy of a statement?’

    It seems to me that the answer is “no”. Checking the factual accuracy of a statement is never, by itself, wrong. Gumby Mark is of the opposite opinion.

    Note: Now, Gumby Mark may be responding to a question that I wasn’t thinking of. I never specified the definition of “wrong” in my question. As I always say, if you want a valid answer, start with a valid question: agree on (a) the question, (b) the definition of the terms used in the question, and (c) the implicit assumptions of the question.

    I meant “moral” wrong, not pragmatical error, but I didn’t specify. GM may have assumed I meant the latter.

    • #9
    • May 28, 2020, at 1:50 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. The Reticulator Member

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…: Today the President has been rightfully very vocal about Twitter’s decision to fact-check him, after years of tolerating vicious non-factual assaults on the President, as well as upon anyone else who does not bow to Progressive Orthodoxy.

    It is never wrong to check the factual accuracy of a statement, is it?

    Yes, it can be wrong.

    You may have heard of the Memorial weekend kerfluffle in Michigan. Gov. Whitmer’s hubby tried to use his connection to the governor to get their dock put in the water for the weekend (after his wife told everyone to stay home) and when that became known the Missus said it was a “failed attempt at a joke.” Would it be wrong for a fact-checker such as myself to check the factual accuracy of her statement?

    Fact-check: False.

    • #10
    • May 28, 2020, at 6:43 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  11. Lilly B Coolidge

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    To add a note to my post, the one I’m most concerned about is Google because of how many people rely upon its search function, its control of YouTube, and its ability to subtlely and in hard to detect ways to influence users.

    A friend of mine who is working at DOJ on the antitrust case against the tech companies says to use DuckDuckGo. I have switched my default browser settings. And I have stopped using Twitter and Facebook, although I am still checking Instagram occasionally. Big Tech’s tentacles are everywhere! 

    • #11
    • May 28, 2020, at 6:54 PM PDT
    • Like