Senate Intel report found "no evidence that vote tallies were altered or that voter registry files were deleted or modified" yet the big headline was that Russia "hacked all 50 states" -- weirdpic.twitter.com/vypfXHDSPy
Roving journalist, friend to all dogs mtracey@protonmail.com
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Senate Intel report found "no evidence that vote tallies were altered or that voter registry files were deleted or modified" yet the big headline was that Russia "hacked all 50 states" -- weirdpic.twitter.com/vypfXHDSPy
Some headlines used the phrasing that Russia "targeted" all 50 states. Of course "targeting" is an amorphous weasel word. Some of this "targeting" included simple, routine "scanning" of public-facing websites, which states only noticed after the Feds issued a panicked warningpic.twitter.com/srCpCZSI8U
NYT and others blared the headline, "All 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016," but this state says "they have seen no evidence of scanning or attack attempts related to state-wide election infrastructure in 2016." Did anyone even bother to read the report?pic.twitter.com/ViATryNoWd
The "targeting" that we're all supposed to be up-in-arms about consisted of "pinging" public websites, which happens constantly all day everyday. That's why local officials barely took note of it. Only after the "Russian interference" narrative was introduced did anyone carepic.twitter.com/YzB1cAGuop
Of course huge sections of the report are redacted so we may never know what this mysterious "unexplained event" was
pic.twitter.com/sdrM0juk8c
In one instance, a malware "attack" initially assumed to be the Russian government was later assessed to be non-Russian criminal activity. This stuff, like so much else with the broader Russia narrative, is confirmation bias run amokpic.twitter.com/4GDubFXgLT
Revising your assessment based on new evidence is literally the opposite of confirmation bias.
The initial assessment presuming the Russian government to be culpable was obvious indicia of confirmation bias, but thanks for the pedantic clarification.
"The FBI could not confirm the attack was tied to the Russian government." That initial assessment? Anyway, no. Beginning with a refutable presumption, then testing and refuting it, is only evidence of confirmation bias on Opposite Day.
Beginning with an assumption of Russian culpability is confirmation bias. Just because the assumption was later refuted doesn't negate the initial assumption being reflective of confirmation bias, fueled by the broader unsubstantiated Russia paranoia.
No. Forming an initial theory from a broader context is not "confirmation bias". Confirmation bias specifically refers to an unwillingness to revise one's views in the face of contravening evidence.
No. Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs. The existing belief in Russian interference caused an initial assumption of Russian culpability. The belief was later refuted, but it was borne of confirmation bias.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.