@PressSec spars with CNN’s Jim Acosta over fact checking: “There is no one that should be fact checked more than the mainstream media that has been continually wrong about a number of things.”

Sharing is Caring!

DOES ANYBODY STILL BELIEVE IT IS? It’s Time To Stop Pretending Twitter Is a Neutral Platform.

Related: “There are literally hundreds of millions of tweets far ‘worse’ than Donald Trump’s that go up every day and they won’t be able to police them all. And that opens them up to a full range of possible legal problems. Twitter could have stayed on the sideline and avoided this trap. If they really think that the President’s tweets are so misleading or terrible, they could have let the community make that decision and essentially leave Trump free to hoist himself on his own petard. But now that they’ve put on their editor’s hat, a new game is afoot. And I doubt they’re going to enjoy it.”

More: Twitter Exec In Charge of Fact-Checking Once Called Trump and His Team ‘Actual Nazis.’

Social Media’s day of reckoning is here. They can either continue to censor and be liable for lawsuits as a publisher, or allow free speech.


Social media has enjoyed protection under the FCC Communications act for decades. Being able to avoid lawsuits, and censor to their hearts desire. As they have hired more extreme ‘fact checkers’ things have become very ugly.


Twitter claims

Trump claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “a Rigged Election.” However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.

That is an objective, factual claim. Not an opinion. It is also totally false. There is a Republican operative from North Carolina who is in jail for voter fraud with mail-in ballots.

There is a lot of other evidence from other sources, as well:

A 2012 report in The New York Times noted that voter fraud involving mail-in ballots “is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say. In Florida, absentee-ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time.” According to a Wall Street Journal report on voter exploitation in Hispanic communities in Texas, mail-in ballots have “spawned a mini-industry of consultants who get out the absentee vote, sometimes using questionable techniques.” Poor, elderly, and minority communities are most likely to be preyed upon by so-called ballot “brokers.”

Concerns about fraud in mail-in ballots were serious enough that a 2008 report produced by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project recommended that states “restrict or abolish on-demand absentee voting in favor of in-person early voting.”

“The convenience that on-demand absentees produces is bought at a significant cost to the real and perceived integrity of the voting process,” the report added. “On the face of it, early voting can provide nearly equal convenience with significantly greater controls against fraud and coercion.” Similarly, another academic study done in 2008 from Reed College flagged various concerns related to absentee voting and conceded there is a “great deal of literature on turnout” but when it comes to mail-in ballots there is “a dearth of research on campaign effects, election costs, ballot quality, and the risk of fraud.”




Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.