well, he's asking the right question. that said...
i would treat trump's tweets right now not as disinformation designed to influence the media's count-the-votes reporting - too late for that - but to incite his supporters (to violence? to the streets? to find ways to end vote counting?) and, as always, to salve his wounded ego.
in that sense, particularly the incitement part, it is imperative for the platforms to be on top of this QUICKLY and continue to consider tougher measures than mere labeling.
but the clear political message is this: trump knows he has lost.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @nytimes editorial board has called for social media platforms to come together with clear standards to address election disinformation. Good for them! nytimes.com/2020/09/27/opi…
god bless the memory of the great and brilliant Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
did you need another reason to understand why november matters? why dems have to dominate? why there is absolutely no way the gop gets to push through a nom now?
this is really NOT the way any of us should have to start 5781
this intense @RMac18@CraigSilverman@PranavDixit piece highlights at least three points. the first is well known, namely: bad actors worldwide exploit *what the platform offers them* to manipulate the public
the second is a recurring problem of failure to address major manipulation in what some might consider the 'periphery'. given that the platform's user base is mainly outside the US, this is unconscionable.
& third, connected to 2, the oft-noted sense that facebook operates in response to public pressure & bad pr. indeed, why did sophie zhang feel like she was acting alone, without support, to address these issues?
the legal risks of arms sales are the least of it, when you consider the humanitarian disaster the US has facilitated in #Yemen. Still, this is shocking, a major story, & i concur w/the quotes attributed to @oonahathaway & @rgoodlaw. a further note or two.
with the advance of criminal/civil liability globally for war crimes, it's become essential for State Dept lawyers to lay out legal risks for policymakers. we did this in 2002, as i described in this thread.
i worked in “L”, the legal office @StateDept, handling int’l humanitarian law (mainly law of war/armed conflict). I came in early that morning and, tho my memory is hazy on the particulars, found a post-it note on my desk.
It was from a senior lawyer, brilliant person who had 20 questions for each 1 of yours (L ppl, familiar?). the handwritten note said something like, ‘david, what if a perpetrator/facilitator of the attacks falls into US hands? what’s their status? criminal? combatant?’