(05-28-2020, 09:52 AM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(05-28-2020, 09:11 AM)Last42min Wrote: I have less of a problem with fact check option. I wouldn't mind it at all if you could remove bias from the equation.

Same here. But the thing is if you fact check one person/entity, then you have to fact check them all. Where does it stop and what source is used for acceptable fact checking? 

IMHO, Twitter used CNN and WaPo as fact checking sources for the symbolism rather than veracity. No honest and clear thinking individual believes either of those sources are non-biased and completely truthful. Is was nothing more than a shot across the bow of Trump, but without the threat of silencing, or obstinately challenging, one of their biggest revenue generators.

Whatever the intention behind linking those biased sources, where are the unbiased sources they should link? Pretty hard to find these days unfortunately. 

However -  If you follow the link from Trump's tweet falsely claiming mail-in voting is an open door to fraud, you'll find articles supporting factual information from other sources such as, NBC, ABC, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, CBS, The Guardian, and The Hill. It wasn't just CNN and WaPo.

Whatever you think about these sources, there simply isn't precedent to support the claim that all of this mail-in voting (that is already very commonplace) is rife with fraud. 

The more likely explanation for the tack he's steering is the election results from the Wisconsin primary in which a majority of mail in votes were logged in favor of candidates who oppose Trump. But whatever his motivation, there is no evidence to support the claim  --  and if there is evidence to support it - then the past several presidential elections are equally as called into question as the one upcoming. 


It's a slippery slope to determine which posts are worthy or unworthy of the addendum for sure. 

I like the concept of a fact check link added to posts that are blatant misinformation, but there obviously is not a clear-cut system in place to execute that w/o at least the implication of bias creeping in right now.

---