←back to thread

707 points patd | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.016s | source
Show context
djohnston ◴[] No.23322847[source]
The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
replies(6): >>23322949 #>>23322950 #>>23322971 #>>23323003 #>>23323336 #>>23323566 #
1. shadowgovt ◴[] No.23323566[source]
If fact-checking the President when he says untrue things is "strong political bias," there are larger problems than the fate of one employee at Twitter.
replies(2): >>23323658 #>>23327184 #
2. djohnston ◴[] No.23323658[source]
That isn't the bias, check his Twitter history there are links all over this thread
3. shadowgovt ◴[] No.23327682[source]
What's he covering up? Twitter has provided sources for their fact-check. The President is more than welcome to provide sources for his fraud claims any time he chooses. Via Twitter. Same medium that is fact-checking him.

The fact he says what he does un-sourced, and people believe him because he speaks from the authority of his office, is the troubling thing.

replies(1): >>23328612 #
4. im3w1l ◴[] No.23328612{3}[source]
I'm not saying he is covering anything up right now. But as I argued, IF there were anything to cover up, his bias means that he would. Since he's gonna say nothing is up whether it is or isn't I'm just gonna tune it out entirely. It carries no signal.
replies(1): >>23328759 #
5. shadowgovt ◴[] No.23328759{4}[source]
Biased signal is still signal.

A data source that only reports facts that support its theory is still reporting facts. I think, rather than tune it out, combining it with other sources gives a richer picture.