A college student just killed the biggest advantage politicians have ever had. The gap between the lie and the fact-check.
He built a Chrome extension called InTruth. It listens to any live speech, debate, or interview.
Transcribes every word. And checks every claim against real sources in real time. Before the speaker even finishes the sentence.
It works on debates. Press conferences. Town halls. Interviews. Anything with someone talking on video. The fact-check shows up on your screen while they're still talking.
Until now, fact-checking happened hours or days later. By then the clip has been shared, the headline has been written, and the damage is done. Nobody reads the correction.
InTruth closes that gap to seconds. The claim and the fact-check exist in the same moment.
A college student, a Chrome extension, and an AI model just did what entire newsrooms couldn't figure out for decades.
This dandy from the WSJ Editorial Board:
"Since Mr. Trump declassified the memo, we can quote the part he didn’t. “Vote tabulation systems would be difficult to manipulate on a wide enough scale to compromise election results,” it says. “The systems in each voting location are not connected to the Internet or to each other, and many methods for exploiting them rely on physical proximity.” Achieving it across many jurisdictions “would be difficult” and “audits and paper trails very likely would uncover such an effort."
...
"Unfortunately, the message from Mr. Trump and others has been that America’s elections can’t be trusted, and the only hope is the SAVE America Act. Aside from being untrue, this is a political backfire for the GOP. If Republican voters believe it, and the bill falls short, then why waste time going to the polls in November? Has the GOP already forgotten how Mr. Trump’s fraud outbursts cost them two Senate seats in the 2021 Georgia runoffs?"
https://t.co/pYuiD6uP4N
Instead of arguing why private insurance companies should be allowed to charge outrageous amounts of money while denying legitimate claims, it is easier to point and shout “socialist!”
Instead of arguing why full-time workers should not be paid enough to live, it is easier to call a living wage radical.
Instead of arguing why the richest country in the world cannot feed children, provide affordable childcare, or guarantee paid sick leave, it is easier to pretend every public benefit is a slippery slope to the Soviet Union.
But the word “socialist” does not scare people the way it used to. That is why they so quickly escalate to “communist,” as if we are back in the McCarthy era and every demand for a better life is a plot to overthrow the country.
The real problem for the establishment is that this name-calling has stopped working.
There are politicians associated with concrete economic battles: taxing the rich, lowering healthcare costs, protecting workers, taking on corporate power, reducing student debt, defending Social Security and Medicare, and making government work for normal people instead of billionaires.
That is what voters are responding to.
They are not asking for America to abandon capitalism. They are asking why capitalism in America has become so brutal for working people while billionaires and corporations keep getting more power, more tax breaks, and more loopholes, with endless excuses crafted to defend it.
It is not capitalism versus socialism. It is whether the government will finally do something about the problems people live with every day.
@DrMartyKlein Interesting article, but I note that it doesn't address the subset of men who legitimately want to stop watching porn but can't, can no longer get an erection with a real person, and are watching it even though it's hurting them in other ways. Seems like porn is the problem there
@DNCFraud@CharlesMac97@theredhombre That implies a rape from someone who *should* be here is somehow better. The legal status of the rapist is irrelevant to the degree of 'badness.' You could say, "one rape from a used car sakesman is too many" and be equally correct
There’s a full-blast propaganda blitz on X today trying to smear the ACA, and posts with actual history are getting choked out by the algorithm. That’s not an accident. The people who spent years trying to kill the law don’t want you seeing the receipts.
So shove their censorship attempt right back in their faces. Share this everywhere. Let the truth outrun their manufactured bullshit.
@Spock_H@KevinLedgister@kyledcheney The J6 detainees got the full panoply of due process rights including evidentiary hearings and jury trials. That's what we're talking about: even non-citizens have a right to a hearing before being deported, just like the J6 defendants
@JonM1965@JoshEakle@ADioumaev The IRS has arrest powers, but it will let me file my taxes on April 30 without arresting me; I'll have to pay a late fee of about $120. Enforcement agencies don't have to pull out the big guns every time someone misses a filing deadline
@imtweetn@kylegriffin1 The part of English common law pertaining to the authority of kings obviously has no bearing on the U.S., which doesn't have one
@OnlyTerp@ChrisAlvino Hang on, so you think the *only* things women find attractive are men capable of taking care of kids and family longer and living a healthy life? That's it? Not sense of humor, intelligence, humility, confidence, kindness....
@Momyoffour4@AllGazoo@ChrisMurphyCT There's no evidence he was in any gang and no evidence he committed crimes. If they can do this to him, they're one step away from doing this to you. They've said they have no problems with deporting U.S. citizens
@VPizzoferrato@JasmineForUS The Supreme Court has held that because due process is afforded to every "person" under the Constituition, that includes "aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).
@keyssheri@adgirlMM It would've been GREAT if we had voted someone in who would return the country to fiscal responsibility, but instead we voted the person in who exploded the deficit the last time he was in office
@OozeGulper1846@BreezerGalway Exactly. How do you reason with someone who's fundamentally opposed to the concept?
"This data was very helpful and now it's gone."
"We shouldn't have been spending money on it anyway."
"But... the money was spent already!"
"If it was important to you it must be bad."