Data is the ultimate Fact Check. This is a President that's adamantly opposed to fact checking [1] and has even coerced Facebook to drop fact checking. Of course they don't want data on government sites that disprove their "alternate facts".
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...
Well, fact-checking works if it's done impartially. So, if you want to fairly fact-check a political debate, each side should have their own team of researchers/fact-checkers being equally able to object to an argument made by the opposing party. Due process, sort of, kind of.
But I don't think I've ever seen that done actually. Usually, fact checkers are akin to Reddit moderators. Technically independent, but with one important twist. These are people that have a lot of free time and are willing to spend it doing unpaid (or underpaid) work. And that's a huge bias. Big enough to question impartiality, if you ask me.
The Trumpian opposition to fact checkers is not based on some principled disagreement of substance. Trump, and by extension Republicans, oppose fact checking because the facts are in contradiction to their goals. Trump himself exists in some post-modern environment where "facts" aren't real and all that matters is spin. He wants what he says to go unquestioned. That's why instead of having a debate about facts, supported by evidence, he simply seeks to remove facts from the discussion entirely.
Really? Greenpeace says it's because X platforms conspiracy theorists and climate change skeptics. [1]
“But this tool, initially perceived as a new arena for free speech, has become a serious danger to it and to the respect for personal dignity,” point out organizations such as Cimade, France Nature Environment, Greenpeace France, and APF France Handicap in an op-ed published in Le Monde.
Their primary concerns include “the lack of moderation and the configuration of algorithms” which “encourage the spread of hateful content and the circulation of conspiracy and climate skeptic theories.”
[1] https://glassalmanac.com/87-french-groups-including-emmaus-g...
> Trump and the Republicans are very much in favor of checking facts. It is the opposite of censorship: Expose everything.
You know that you're writing this in a post about how the current Republican administration has been scrubbing massive amounts of scientific data from government websites, right?
I don't see how Greenpeace is at all relevant here.
I'm not saying this is right, but after every party change everything on the government websites change and links/data disappear. This is not limited to this one election, we just happen to notice it now because someone brought it up. Kinda like small chips on your car's windshield.
Notice how things like eg the federal reserve data does not disappear because it is protected by legislation. We should be asking not why is it disappearing, but why didn't we enshrine preservation of data in law?
False equivalence. This is not some cosmetic change. No administration has ever done a bulk removal of scientific data from all government websites solely because it conflicts with their policy goals.
This removal expresses not just a differing policy but a contempt for facts themselves.
When Bush took office all of the data about climate change disappeared from government websites. So this is not a post about false equivalence but a question why the previous party did not protect this specific data like other government agencies. I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe
Now you're just gaslighting. There is no "protection" that can prevent a new presidential administration from modifying government websites as they see fit.
> I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe
What is this, the X Files? Vague allusions like this don't make you look wise, they make you look like you're making stuff up to win internet points.
Ok this is getting a little too...hot for HN so just a heads up I will not reply after this one. You are absolutely right that there is no protection that can prevent administrations from modifying websites, otherwise websites would never get redesigned! However, there is a federal law that requires government agencies to retain records and different agencies have different requirements. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader on what could facilitate a records retention change within different agencies.
As you surely know, the legal requirement to retain records does not extend to a requirement to maintain those records on a public web site. You are not arguing in good faith. Please stop muddying the waters with your buffoonish rhetoric. Thanks.
In case it helps you to have someone chime in besides the person you're arguing with, "You are not arguing in good faith" applies a lot more to "stop muddying the waters with your buffoonish rhetoric" and "What is this, the X Files? Vague allusions like this don't make you look wise" than to anything the person you're arguing with said. I don't know the answer to the point you're arguing and I can't tell who's right from this thread either (neither side posts sources or disproves the other side's central claim, from my point of view), but this isn't how to go about it
I strongly disagree.
When someone is wrong, you can correct them. When someone is lying, i.e. knowingly spreading falsehood in an effort to manipulate an audience, it's vitally important to call them out on it. People need to recognize who is using misinformation as a weapon. The points of highlighted are manipulative rhetorical techniques, not merely bad arguments. These people need to be identified and shunned, especially in a place as committed to dialogue as HN.
Sorry you don't like my phrasing. What method would you suggest to call alarm to a dishonest actor in a public space?
Consider your own ignorance. It is impossible to be certain of anything because of unknown unknowns. You merely assume they are lying, but you could never prove that.
A righteous condemnation with no proof and all feelings is exactly the soil the grows facism.
> Consider your own ignorance. It is impossible to be certain of anything because of unknown unknowns. You merely assume they are lying, but you could never prove that.
Good point. In fact, I can't even prove that America exists. I can't prove that you're real person, or that I'm typing on a computer, or that I even exist. My own eyes could be deceiving me. I am condemned to a universe full of impenetrable doubt.
I should probably just ignore reason and logic, and instead spend my days shivering and alone, unable to interact with a world where so much is forever unknowable.
Of course, you can't prove that I can't prove that grepfru_it is lying, so really it would be you who should consider your own ignorance. I assume that a sage like yourself has already internalized your own advice and that you strictly avoid engaging in news or debate, since all externalities are unproveable. Right?