625
Elon Musk Is Spreading Election Misinformation, but X’s Fact Checkers Are Long Gone
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
625 points (96.7% liked)
News
36993 readers
1948 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the mods on Lemmy don't care about election misinformation either. I have had a thousand people tell me that voting for cornel west counts as a vote for trump, and I have never seen it removed.
hell, I was told this by a moderator for c/politics.
They weren't wrong. There is a reason West is getting donations from conservatives like Harlan Crow that oppose his views.
They are wrong. You can stamp your feet and insist otherwise because you're scared of losing, but they're wrong.
But they are wrong. If someone is in a solidly blue state like California, a vote for Cornell West literally means nothing because of the Electoral College. Arguably, if you're in a safe state like that, why not vote with your conscience? (I'm not here to make comment on West's politics, I don't follow him, I'm making a point about the Electoral College and Presidential elections)
I can understand having the attitude of "Well, there's not really a lot of safe options" when they're a swing state or hell even a red state (not a bad thing to try to make a dent against them on their own home turf), but it seems to be really talking down to a lot of Democrat voters who live in Democratic strongholds whose vote basically is meaningless because of the Electoral College but despite this they're being bullied into voting the Democrat choice for President.
Now, even in a blue state, voting matters locally and not just giving your vote out to just any Tom, Dick or Harry matters. But a Presidential election where we continue to use the Electoral College to decide the President and not the popular vote? That's just dismissive of the reality of how anti-Democratic the Electoral College actually is.
If it takes three paragraphs and your specific voting location to explain why your vote "technically" won't go to 45, maybe those people are right. The problem is that there are a LOT of people that don't understand the nuance and we have to plan for the lowest common denominator, otherwise people in actual swing states will see posts like your first one (lacking any explanation) and run with it. For them, a third party vote actually is helping 45.
Additionally, there's a decent argument to be made about total votes even though they don't "technically" decide the president. That number still matters and a lot of weight is thrown around with it. For all we know, this whole thing could hit the courts and having every advantage may be necessary to save our future.
They weren't responding to the original comment, they were responding to yours; I guess you could take your own advice, perhaps?
That's what they said. Maybe your reading comprehension needs some work, too, buddy. I didn't have a "first one."
Jesus you asswipes need to learn to fucking read.
Oh the irony of you telling us to read when you literally can't figure out that yes, I was talking to YOU. When I said "your first post" it meant yours not the OP. Look in a mirror.
"first post' implies more than one. at the time you originally responded to me, my response to you was my only response in the thread discussing anything related to third parties at the time.
So tell me please, why would you refer to "my first post" when the only one that referenced anything related to this subject was the one you were responding to?
Further, you say it "lacks explanation." The only post I made about the subject included an explanation, dipshit, the explanation that you said "took three paragraphs." That's the only post I made on the subject of whether or not a third party counts as a vote for Trump.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Show me where I made that post, please. Because literally I came into the thread to add my explanation which you shat all over and then said I had left out of a previous post I obviously didn't make.
Because this:
Was not me, genius.
Jesus christ you fucking morons. I reiterate, learn to fucking read.
Can you see that my username is not the top-level comment here or are you stupid or just a gaslighter?
The vote is counted for Cornell West. Not Trump.
That's not misinformation. That's just unfortunate and an indictment of our current elections system.
it's misinformation. votes for Cornel West only count for Cornel West. they do not count for Trump.
That is technically true, but practically not so much. The way our elections are currently run, there are 2 candidates (again this is the practical truth not the technical truth). When turnout is high democrats win, and voting 3rd party for president is essentially the same as not voting at all. That's what people mean, that unless it's a vote for Biden, then it's automatically a vote for Trump.
To be clear, I don't like this, it's incredibly stupid and I want to be able to vote for actually good candidates. But that is not the current reality in the states. Vote 3rd party in your local elections and campaign for them too. That's where it's still possible to make that happen and lay the ground work for better choices in the future.
but that's not true, in reality, at all.
saying it or implying it is misinformation
Is that the only part you read? There was a bit of explanation before that conclusion. You're going to have to address the substance of my argument if you're going to make a real counter argument. The reply you just gave me is 'nuh uh'
I'm not making a counter argument: I'm pointing out your argument is not true. I don't need an argument: you need to be truthful.
You being too dense to understand what they're saying doesn't make it misinformation.
I know what they're saying. they're being dishonest.
why can't we be friends?