Subhead: Evidence showing Facebook is giving right-wing pages preferential treatment when it comes to misinformation
"misinformation strikes against Breitbart had been cleared by someone at Facebook seemingly acting on the publication's behalf"
"all misinformation strikes against Breitbart’s page and against their domain cleared without explanation"
"policy people have been intervening in fact-checks on behalf of exclusively right-wing publishers, to avoid them getting repeat-offender status"
"senior Facebook engineer collected multiple instances of conservative figures receiving unique help from Facebook employees, including those on the policy team, to remove fact-checks on their content. His July post was removed because it violated the company’s 'respectful communication policy'"
> Zuckerberg is currently talking at the all-hands meeting right now about leaks.
> "Part of that culture means we need to take a pretty heavy hand when people violate that trust," he says, threatening to fire leakers. He said someone was already fired for leaking this week.
> Zuckerberg just tried to address the question from FB employees on if the company has a plan in place if Trump uses the platform to invalidate election results.
> He said the co has been thinking about it and that they're in an "unprecedented position."
> Zuckerberg says he doesn't think there will be a result by the end of election night because of the volume of votes via vote-by-mail. He says they have a responsibility to maintain election integrity between when votes are cast and when election results are announced.
> He still didn't quite address the question. Employees wanted to specifically know what would happen if Trump declared on Facebook that the election results were invalid. That was not specifically or totally addressed.
It could create social upheaval, for sure. But in the end, there is no one single election to dispute.
In each individual state, the presidential electors get together and vote. Those votes get locked up and delivered to Congress. Vice President Pence and the Speaker of the House preside over the counting of the votes, which will be done by two Democrats and two Republicans.
At that point, the votes can be disputed in writing. Both the Senate and the House must vote to reject those votes.
Once done, if no candidate has 270 or more votes, the House of Representatives votes for President and the Senate votes for Vice President.
Don't we have a problem if a governor and Houses in one state decide that the winner is their candidate, even if it's not or disputed? (see Florida and Gore).
I find it somewhat absurd that this idea of Trump refusing to concede to Biden is gaining so much traction in the public discourse.
I believe a much more dangerous and practical concern that nobody in the mainstream media seems willing to write about is that of the mass rioting and senseless violence which will inevitably occur if Trump wins. I'm guessing it will be orders of magnitude worse than what happened when he won in 2016, due to the elevated state of civil unrest we're experiencing. Not to mention the horrible effect it will have on the Covid situation.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a publication as consistently disreputable and biased as Buzzfeed News to even acknowledge such a possibility.
7 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 24.5 ms ] thread"misinformation strikes against Breitbart had been cleared by someone at Facebook seemingly acting on the publication's behalf"
"all misinformation strikes against Breitbart’s page and against their domain cleared without explanation"
"policy people have been intervening in fact-checks on behalf of exclusively right-wing publishers, to avoid them getting repeat-offender status"
"senior Facebook engineer collected multiple instances of conservative figures receiving unique help from Facebook employees, including those on the policy team, to remove fact-checks on their content. His July post was removed because it violated the company’s 'respectful communication policy'"
As usual, the first rule of a "respectful communication policy" is "disagreeing with the policy-makers is disrespectful".
> "Part of that culture means we need to take a pretty heavy hand when people violate that trust," he says, threatening to fire leakers. He said someone was already fired for leaking this week.
> Zuckerberg just tried to address the question from FB employees on if the company has a plan in place if Trump uses the platform to invalidate election results.
> He said the co has been thinking about it and that they're in an "unprecedented position."
> Zuckerberg says he doesn't think there will be a result by the end of election night because of the volume of votes via vote-by-mail. He says they have a responsibility to maintain election integrity between when votes are cast and when election results are announced.
> He still didn't quite address the question. Employees wanted to specifically know what would happen if Trump declared on Facebook that the election results were invalid. That was not specifically or totally addressed.
https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1291446110737711105
In each individual state, the presidential electors get together and vote. Those votes get locked up and delivered to Congress. Vice President Pence and the Speaker of the House preside over the counting of the votes, which will be done by two Democrats and two Republicans.
At that point, the votes can be disputed in writing. Both the Senate and the House must vote to reject those votes.
Once done, if no candidate has 270 or more votes, the House of Representatives votes for President and the Senate votes for Vice President.
I believe a much more dangerous and practical concern that nobody in the mainstream media seems willing to write about is that of the mass rioting and senseless violence which will inevitably occur if Trump wins. I'm guessing it will be orders of magnitude worse than what happened when he won in 2016, due to the elevated state of civil unrest we're experiencing. Not to mention the horrible effect it will have on the Covid situation.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a publication as consistently disreputable and biased as Buzzfeed News to even acknowledge such a possibility.