Support NeoGAF

[AuthenticM]

The Washington Post

On Friday morning, President-elect Donald Trump took a new tack in his war on the Russia hacking issue.

As our Dave Weigel noted, this isn't really accurate. There was nothing illegal at play, and Donna Brazile wasn't the head of the Democratic National Committee at the time that she leaked town hall questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Weigel wrote a whole post about the issue — but people who just click through to the link see only Trump's claim, and none of the context.

Unless, of course, they've installed our extension for Google Chrome.

We made a tool that slips a bit more context into Trump's tweets. It's still in the early stages, but our goal is to provide additional context where needed for Trump's tweets moving forward (and a few golden oldies). For example, here's what it shows in relation to that Trump tweet.

Link to the extension

 

[Beartruck]

Nice idea, but nobody who needs this extension will use it.

 

[TheAbsolution]

I've got my own solution to this. I just assume that everything Trump says is a lie.

 

[GuyKazama]

There was nothing illegal at play, and Donna Brazile wasn't the head of the Democratic National Committee at the time that she leaked town hall questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

These fact-checkers miss the point. The point is that she leaked questions.

The tweet is historical fiction, but it still paints a fairly accurate narrative.

 

[Not]

Nice idea, but nobody who needs this extension will use it.

Well, at least people will get a better idea.

The tweet is historical fiction, but it still paints a fairly accurate narrative.

"This is one thing, but it still is something completely opposite."

 

[Neoweee]

These fact-checkers miss the point. The point is that she leaked questions.

The tweet is historical fiction, but it still paints a fairly accurate narrative.

No? Not really? I mean, 2 of the 3 facts in the tweet are factually wrong. That's is pretty broad off the mark.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

These fact-checkers miss the point. The point is that she leaked questions.

The tweet is historical fiction, but it still paints a fairly accurate narrative.

Well, that's sort of what you think the point of the tweet is, yes. But other people don't know that information, and would take Trump's tweet at face value. Now they can have a fact checked version of that tweet, which calls out the incorrect statements, and does not refute that Brazile gave questions to Clinton. I'm not sure anyone would be able to call the WaPo correction less accurate than the Trump tweet, so I don't think they missed the point.

 

[GuyKazama]

Well, at least people will get a better idea.



"This is one thing, but it still is something completely opposite."

No? Not really? I mean, 2 of the 3 facts in the tweet are factually wrong. That's is pretty broad off the mark.

Well, for one, it could be argued that he's referring to the DNC head in the present tense, while referring to past actions.

Secondly, it wasn't illegal -- but it still happened. It was improper -- which is more hyperbole, than a lie.

I think my response speaks to the argument above that these fact checkers only serve to keep people in their own bubble.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Well, for one, it could be argued that he's referring to the DNC head in the present tense, while referring to past actions.

Secondly, it wasn't illegal -- but it still happened. It was improper -- which is more hyperbole, than a lie.

I think my response speaks to the argument above that these fact checkers only serve to keep people in their own bubble.

What's the difference between hyperbole and fact in your mind?

If I say that I'm 7 feet tall, but I'm actually 6 feet tall, did I lie or did I commit "hyperbole"?

 

[Horns]

I've got my own solution to this. I just assume that everything Trump says is a lie.

This is probably the safest route.

 

[Ogodei]

Nice idea, but nobody who needs this extension will use it.

Get Google to make it mandatory. Once Trump's FCC starts gunning for Google Fiber (and you know they will, since it terrifies the normal ISPs), they'll have no reason to play nice.

 

[Neoweee]

Well, for one, it could be argued that he's referring to the DNC head in the present tense, while referring to past actions.

Secondly, it wasn't illegal -- but it still happened. It was improper -- which is more hyperbole, than a lie.

I think my response speaks to the argument above that these fact checkers only serve to keep people in their own bubble.

"Illegal" has a very specific meaning. It isn't a question of degrees. It isn't some scale.

Accusing WaPo of enforcing a bubble is kind of out there. This is about trying pierce the insane bubble that allowed Trump to get this far in the first. WaPo isn't in the bubble. They're outside, trying to get in. Arm people with the truth so they can fight against BS.

Objective truth took an L this year, and its gotta stop.

 

[hawk2025]

These fact-checkers miss the point. The point is that she leaked questions.

The tweet is historical fiction, but it still paints a fairly accurate narrative.

You are so fucking transparent.

"Fact checkers only serve to keep people in their own bubble" is one of the most disgusting, dangerous things I've ver read in these boards.

 

[Desi]

These fact-checkers miss the point. The point is that she leaked questions.

The tweet is historical fiction, but it still paints a fairly accurate narrative.

Well questions were leaked and that is covered in the fact checking.

 

[#sorrynotsorry]

What's the difference between hyperbole and fact in your mind?

If I say that I'm 7 feet tall, but I'm actually 6 feet tall, did I lie or did I commit "hyperbole"?

I think the point is that the truth or fiction of a statement doesn't matter when considering the point. The point of the tweet is that it's wrong. Please address the substance. You can't just dismiss the statement because it is factually inaccurate - he could still be right.

So in some ways he's right. People will dismiss the tweet because it has inaccurate information thanks to this app. They should not. They should dismiss it if they believe trump is wrong.

 

[ahoyhoy]

I think the point is that the truth or fiction of a statement doesn't matter when considering the point. The point of the tweet is that it's wrong. Please address the substance. You can't just dismiss the statement because it is factually inaccurate - he could still be right.

So in some ways he's right. People will dismiss the tweet because it has inaccurate information thanks to this app. They should not. They should dismiss it if they believe trump is wrong.

If Trump wants his points addressed, he needs to make them respectfully and not wrapped in a layer of frothy bullshit.

Basically, he needs to do what Fox News is always telling BLM Protesters to do and address issues with "civility".

 

[collige]

I think the point is that the truth or fiction of a statement doesn't matter when considering the point. The point of the tweet is that it's wrong. Please address the substance. You can't just dismiss the statement because it is factually inaccurate - he could still be right.

So in some ways he's right. People will dismiss the tweet because it has inaccurate information thanks to this app. They should not. They should dismiss it if they believe trump is wrong.

Trump's point is undermined by his willingness to bend and outright break the truth

 

[psynergylover]

Nice idea, but nobody who needs this extension will use it.

.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Our next president folks. A man that lies so much, that technology had to be created.

 

[Robotguy]

Now we need an extension that uses optical character recognition to fact check meme images.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Nice idea, but nobody who needs this extension will use it.

This.

I've got my own solution to this. I just assume that everything Trump says is a lie.

Also this. Safe bet, you'd be right at least 70% of the time!

 

[CHC]

Nice idea, but nobody who needs this extension will use it.

This a pretty succinct summary of the problem with the entire world in 2016.

 

[Hyun Sai]

People willing to use this already fact check though.

 

[CyclopsRock]

You are so fucking transparent.

"Fact checkers only serve to keep people in their own bubble" is one of the most disgusting, dangerous things I've ver read in these boards.

Not all fact checkers are created equally, though. Some are great, but some are basically just spin (this is most overtly the case when it's a partisan "fact checker", but some publications with largely unwavering leanings fall into this same trap, too). Too frequently they fall into the trap of getting hung up on specifics and technicalities that they miss the wider point, wherein the actual truth lies.

As an example, here's a post on Jeremy Corbyn's fact-checker blog (created when he was in the midst of his 2nd leadership battle) where it presents a series of "facts" about his opposition to anti-semitism. And nothing it says it incorrect or factually. It doesn't have a specific quote or assertion that it's rebuffing, but the implication is that it's meant to combat the "Jeremy Corbyn has an anti-semitism problem" message that his opponents have put about. The problem comes because that blog post totally misses the point - it's true that no Labour leader has ever commissioned a report into anti-semitism, but that's because no other Labour leader has had such a problem with it. Corbyn's support (at least, in an organisational, party-political sense) comes from the sub-section of the left that views capitalism and America as the big bad and, by proxy, Israel. Lots of his big supporters have questionable histories with anti-semitism and whilst no one has seriously accused Jeremy himself of being anti-semitic, the reason his team had to write a blog post about it is because whilst not all his supporters are anti-semites, a lot of anti-semites are his] supporters. The blog post does nothing to even acknowledge, let alone contest, the long-existing link between the marxist left and anti-semitism, and it's from here whence the accusations stem. So it's simultaneously "fact checking" the situation, whilst doing no real work to actually get to the truth of the matter.

Sorry if this example is a little UK specific, it's just the first that popped into my head.

By all means factual errors should be corrected, but I understand what the person you're quoting says when they say it helps keep people in a bubble (though the example in the OP isn't a good example of that).