Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump threatens social media after Twitter fact checks his vote-by-mail claims

Trump tweets

The two tweets marked with a fact-check warning, prompting the president's retaliatory threats.

AFP/Getty Images

The fight over combating disinformation, one of the main scourges of a functioning democracy, has gone to an unprecedented place in the past 24 hours.

President Trump is now threatening to impose new federal regulation on social media companies, or even force them to shut down. That was his extraordinary vow of retaliation on Wednesday to Twitter's path-breaking decision the day before to call out falsehoods in a pair of presidential tweets.

Compounding the importance of the moment for the cause of good government — which is supposed to rely on unfettered political speech, an independent media and truth-bound public officials all acting in harmony — is the topic at the center of the dispute: Wholly unsubstantiated claims from a president of the United States that the American electoral system is being corrupted.


Trump doubled down on those again Wednesday, on the same social media platform that had just fact-checked him, repeating without any evidence that this year's increasing reliance on mail-in voting will create "a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of ballots."

Twitter added a warning phrase to two Trump tweets from the day before, which among other things derided absentee ballots as "fraudulent" and asserted that "mail boxes will be robbed" and "this will be a rigged election" after millions of forms are delivered across the country this fall at voters' behest — the only plausible way to assure significant turnout, in the middle of a once-a-century pandemic, as Trump stands for re-election.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Under two of his miniature jeremiads, Twitter has placed a "Get the facts about mail-in ballots" link, which takes readers to a specially curated page of links and summaries of news stories about the baselessness of the president's claims.

It is the first time Twitter has deployed this device in response to declarations from Trump or any other national political figure. The company detailed new policies for labeling misleading tweets this month, saying it was part of an effort to make itself less of a venue for misinformation about the coronavirus.

"Republicans feel that social media platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen," the president wrote in reply Wednesday.

He did not detail further what he was talking about. Presidents have no authority to single handedly impose federal regulations on companies, let alone put them out of business. Such actions would require action by Congress or, in the case of the social media giants, the Federal Communications Commission. And any effort to strengthen the rules would presumably be resisted by the deregulatory conservatives who dominate the GOP ranks on Capitol Hill.

Beyond its implications for election integrity and the control of disinformation, the episode highlights Trump's willingness to challenge decades of assumptions about the balance of powers — because his latest threats amount to one of the most aggressive presidential assertions of authority ever in order to harm businesses perceived as political antagonists.

Trump is echoing a conservative chorus that formed before his election to complain that Silicon Valley's products discriminate against conservatives and their limited censorship efforts are focused disproportionately on voices from the right.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms have broad latitude under federal law to moderate their content as they choose — one of the things that has fueled their extraordinary growth for two decades. Some allies of Trump have suggested the industry's current liability protections should be taken away and they should be treated more like traditional publishers, who may be sued for the content they disseminate.

The Trump campaign asserted that Twitter's liberal bias prompted the campaign to pull all advertising from the platform, although Twitter itself no longer accepts traditional paid political messages.

"We always knew that Silicon Valley would pull out all the stops to obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters," Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement Tuesday. "Partnering with the biased fake news media 'fact checkers' is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility."

Claim: Vote-by-mail ballots will create a rigged election en California. Fact check: False

Sara Wilson, Medill School

By Sara Wilson, Medill School

President Trump tweeted another claim about states "illegally" sending ballots or absentee applications to voters. His series of tweets about California specifically say that Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there," suggesting that people who aren't citizens are voting en masse.

Newsom issued an executive order on May 8 to send every registered voter — not anyone living in the state — a vote-by-mail ballot for the Nov. 3 election. People can still vote in person if they want.

Voter fraud in the United States is very rare. An analysis from a team of investigative journalists found 491 instances of absentee voter fraud between 2000 and 2012. "Mail ballot fraud is incredibly rare, and legitimate security concerns can be easily addressed," according to experts from the Brennan Center.

There is also little evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting in California or elsewhere. David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told Politifact in 2018 that "There's zero evidence of even dozens, let alone millions, of non citizens voting in this or any other election."

Read more fact-checking by the Medill School of Journalism.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less