One of the many things presented as evidence that Democrats committed electoral fraud in the 2020 Presidential election is the claim that there's a statistically unusual number of votes for Joe Biden that are "missing" for the Democratic candidate for the Senate:
The original poster has blocked me from seeing this tweet after I posted my first fact check, but it looks like Medium was able to embed it.
The claim goes on to include other states that present a similar "anomaly", showing an apparent pattern of unusual vote counts, only in swing states, adding up to proof of…
It’s been a long time since my last article from the group. A LOT has happened over that time (both in the group, and obviously, the world). Many subjects have crossed my mind to write about here, but I haven’t found the time. I’d like to take those deep dives at some point, but I thought now would be a good opportunity to give some quick news as to the latest activities with the Canonical Debate Lab (CDL).
The CDL has continued to grow, slowly but steadily. We passed the 100-member mark in our Slack team a while back, but…
We believe a critical part of the #Truth2020 movement is the practice of fact checking. That is, analyzing statements that have been made by political candidates, or those around them, and gauging them as to whether or not they are true (and how much).
There are many organizations that have dedicated themselves entirely to this activity. Others, news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post, have dedicated an entire section of their publications to this specific activity.
As important as fact checking is, it's not the be-all end-all solution for truth in politics. There are several forces at work here.
Recently, I announced the kickoff of the so-called hashtag movement, #Truth2020. While the name is to some degree self-explanatory (hint: it's about focusing on truth in the U.S. 2020 elections), it only scratches the surface, and leaves more questions than answers.
If the goal is to focus on, or get at "the truth", then what is it, and how will we know when we've found it? #Truth2020 is a decentralized movement, and will never take a position on what is or isn't "the truth". …
It can be very hard to engage with people online to have a reasonable conversation about the #Truth2020 movement. Even harder is to explain how we can actually make a difference.
Fortunately, there is one goal that is truly bipartisan, which can have very clear results: start asking people to quote their sources!
We need to restore the faith in our journalistic sources. At the same time, we need to hold them to account when they publish false or misleading information. So far, this has manifested itself only as unspecific accusations, which themselves are either false, or are too vague…
2016 was the year of post-truth. Since then, we have been lobbing the hot-potato of "Fake News" back and forth without any true, unified effort to define what it is and, more importantly, take measures to get rid of it once and for all.
Let 2020 be the year of truth in politics!
Democracy is imagined to be the best system (so far) for a large nation to make collective decisions, with the participation of everyone, for the good of all. The United States is the oldest existing representative democracy in existence today. …
President Donald Trump just issued an Executive Order in defense of free speech which threatens to block federal funding for any university which does not "promote free inquiry". This order comes in reaction to a number of events on American Universities in which left-wing protesters have blocked certain public figures from speaking.
There has also been a movement by social media networks (specifically Facebook, YouTube and Twitter) to block or de-platform accounts which have been promoting speech that they deem harmful to the public. …
While hearing from a variety of opinions is interesting enough, the goal is not to find the one true solution to this problem. Rather, this information will be used as (anonymous) test data for a number of different projects related to the Canonical Debate Lab and its members.
The Canonical Debate Lab is already starting development on our joint project to create the "one debate to rule them all": the Canonical Debate. One of our major design goals, quite possibly the one factor that could mean the difference between success and failure of this critical project, is to Make it effortless.
While this may seem like an easy task — Google made search effortless, Twitter made public harassment and humiliation effortless, and Facebook made convincing millions of people to believe in fantasies effortless — debate is a deceptively complex subject.
The Canonical Debate Lab is getting ready to build our unified system, currently called simply enough "The Canonical Debate". Given the highly graph-like nature of debates, using a graph DB seems like an obvious choice.
Unfortunately, our current members have only limited experience with this type of data store. So we're reaching out to the larger community to ask for help in making this rather critical decision before we dive head-first into the unknown.
Here are some of our concerns with regards to making this choice:
Founder of The Canonical Debate Lab