| Why you can't trust Tories 21:08 - Nov 19 with 8810 views | Kievthegreat |
CCHQ's press account has rebranded itself as "Fact Check UK" tonight and now doesn't mention the conservatives except for a tiny "CCHQ" in the corner.
Take a look at factcheckUK (@CCHQPress): https://twitter.com/CCHQPress?s=09 |  | | |  |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:10 - Nov 20 with 1475 views | Keaneish |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 09:28 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
I think you’ve looked at it since they’ve changed it back there
Opening the account and scanning it closely a user would have seen it, but Tweets just popping up in feeds would have looked like an independent fact checking account. Plus even where CCHQ was still mentioned it was subtle and I’d say it’s questionable if the average person would realise immediately what that is
Shameful |
Fair point. I saw it as a bit tongue-in-cheek at first but maybe not so on reflection. |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:23 - Nov 20 with 1449 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:04 - Nov 20 by LankHenners |
It’s name and image looked like that during the debate because it always does, not because it was something obviously representing a party and altered to look independent at a point when there’s be a surge in interest in politics, facts etc.
Yes you could make that argument but as you say you wouldn’t because you’d have to be a bit of a div to make it. Not sure why you mentioned that.
I’ve already said that sort of behaviour is bad, so don’t accuse me of something I’m not doing. It’s not ‘mental gymnastics’ to point out one is pretty blatantly more egregious than the other. |
I don’t think you understand how viral Tweets work
The tweets from the CCHQ account last night were generally retweeted 50-100 times. People seeing those during the debate would have seen the factcheck name and potentially been duped, however once changed back they show as CCHQ
The 2nd tweet on the Insider account has no reference to Labour and has been retweeted 800+ times. People seeing that still today would potentially be duped
They’re both examples of the main parties attempting to dupe and mislead people, and both are shameful. Which side is worse is irrelevant and a pathetic attempt to excuse one party over the other
These things aren’t difficult |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:23 - Nov 20 with 1448 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:06 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
You must be including retweets. I've had a look through and almost all of their authored tweets link to stories with a labour.org.uk web link. As I said, it should be more transparent for sure but it's not the equivalent of the stunt the Tories pulled last night. |
I’m not - none of the links with a video have anything that suggests it’s a Labour source | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:48 - Nov 20 with 1426 views | LankHenners |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:23 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
I don’t think you understand how viral Tweets work
The tweets from the CCHQ account last night were generally retweeted 50-100 times. People seeing those during the debate would have seen the factcheck name and potentially been duped, however once changed back they show as CCHQ
The 2nd tweet on the Insider account has no reference to Labour and has been retweeted 800+ times. People seeing that still today would potentially be duped
They’re both examples of the main parties attempting to dupe and mislead people, and both are shameful. Which side is worse is irrelevant and a pathetic attempt to excuse one party over the other
These things aren’t difficult |
Weren’t you on here the other day labelling the attitude of people being patronising and speaking as if they’re more intelligent than others “absolutely appalling”?
Anyway, a lot of social media, especially in politics, tends to be heavily left wing. This means any anti-Tory material, no matter how bland or removed from reality it is often gets a lot of engagement. The insider page is pretty clearly (beyond the image and name, accepted) in support of Labour. The majority of the people following and engaging with it are very likely to be aware of this (or are at least anti-Tory to some degree) which makes it more insular.
The unreferenced video is naughty and, I’ll repeat, is not good. The specific point (which you made in the first place) was that what CCHQ did last night is equivalent to a Labour propaganda account. That’s clearly not the case and something I casually picked up on. |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:57 - Nov 20 with 1416 views | Herbivore |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:23 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
I’m not - none of the links with a video have anything that suggests it’s a Labour source |
Most of the videos on their page are retweets of the Labour Party. There's a recent one that's a Radio 4 interview they are sharing. I don't see sharing material from another source as being quite the same as authoring tweets that purport to be not only independent but also from a fact checking account. As I've said, that Labour account could and should do more to be fully transparent but it's not the same as what the Tories pulled last night. They were authoring tweets pretending to be a fact checking account. That's deliberate deceit. |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 15:29 - Nov 20 with 1381 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:48 - Nov 20 by LankHenners |
Weren’t you on here the other day labelling the attitude of people being patronising and speaking as if they’re more intelligent than others “absolutely appalling”?
Anyway, a lot of social media, especially in politics, tends to be heavily left wing. This means any anti-Tory material, no matter how bland or removed from reality it is often gets a lot of engagement. The insider page is pretty clearly (beyond the image and name, accepted) in support of Labour. The majority of the people following and engaging with it are very likely to be aware of this (or are at least anti-Tory to some degree) which makes it more insular.
The unreferenced video is naughty and, I’ll repeat, is not good. The specific point (which you made in the first place) was that what CCHQ did last night is equivalent to a Labour propaganda account. That’s clearly not the case and something I casually picked up on. |
I think you’ve got me muddled with someone else, unless you’re referring to me pulling up Footers repeatedly taking pops at poor people which is something quite different. In any event I don’t think I was being particularly patronising, I genuinely think your understanding of how these viral videos gain traction is way off
The Insider page is not clearly Labour when just viewing the Tweets in isolation, which is what happens when people retweet them. It is pretty obviously intended to be the case, otherwise the account would carry more obvious Labour branding. Once things are retweeted then the audience is everyone that follows that person, and so forth - so way outside of the initial audience. Not really sure why you’re arguing otherwise as the same applies to the CCHQ account, pretty obviously - which is why this sort of thing is an issue
It’s only not equivalent if you’re quite desperate to justify the behaviour of the party you prefer | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 15:32 - Nov 20 with 1377 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 13:57 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
Most of the videos on their page are retweets of the Labour Party. There's a recent one that's a Radio 4 interview they are sharing. I don't see sharing material from another source as being quite the same as authoring tweets that purport to be not only independent but also from a fact checking account. As I've said, that Labour account could and should do more to be fully transparent but it's not the same as what the Tories pulled last night. They were authoring tweets pretending to be a fact checking account. That's deliberate deceit. |
Literally second video down as follows - no immediate indication it is from Labour and anyone viewing it would easily think this was from an independent source. Pretty obvious that’s not an accident - and also therefore deliberate deceit
| |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 15:51 - Nov 20 with 1353 views | LankHenners |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 15:29 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
I think you’ve got me muddled with someone else, unless you’re referring to me pulling up Footers repeatedly taking pops at poor people which is something quite different. In any event I don’t think I was being particularly patronising, I genuinely think your understanding of how these viral videos gain traction is way off
The Insider page is not clearly Labour when just viewing the Tweets in isolation, which is what happens when people retweet them. It is pretty obviously intended to be the case, otherwise the account would carry more obvious Labour branding. Once things are retweeted then the audience is everyone that follows that person, and so forth - so way outside of the initial audience. Not really sure why you’re arguing otherwise as the same applies to the CCHQ account, pretty obviously - which is why this sort of thing is an issue
It’s only not equivalent if you’re quite desperate to justify the behaviour of the party you prefer |
I think it was at one of the poster formally known as KuqiCoup's weird rants which was probably justified in context to a degree. Your assertion that I don't know what I'm talking about ("You don't understand..." "these things aren't difficult" etc.) are patronising. Not that I'm particularly bothered or insulted by it but I think if you can't see what you're inferring by your words then I think this explains why you've completely got your wires crossed on this.
To go back to basics - I made a casual remark that your equating of CCHQ's action last night with the Insider_UK account wasn't accurate. That was all. If that's not what you meant then fair enough but it's how it reads.
Still not sure why you're accusing me of desperately trying to justify the behaviour of the party I prefer as I've repeatedly said tweets on that account are sly as they don't all have an obvious link to being from Labour. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:11 - Nov 20 with 1339 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 15:51 - Nov 20 by LankHenners |
I think it was at one of the poster formally known as KuqiCoup's weird rants which was probably justified in context to a degree. Your assertion that I don't know what I'm talking about ("You don't understand..." "these things aren't difficult" etc.) are patronising. Not that I'm particularly bothered or insulted by it but I think if you can't see what you're inferring by your words then I think this explains why you've completely got your wires crossed on this.
To go back to basics - I made a casual remark that your equating of CCHQ's action last night with the Insider_UK account wasn't accurate. That was all. If that's not what you meant then fair enough but it's how it reads.
Still not sure why you're accusing me of desperately trying to justify the behaviour of the party I prefer as I've repeatedly said tweets on that account are sly as they don't all have an obvious link to being from Labour. |
If it’s the one I’m thinking of it was that he was basically suggesting other people shouldn’t have the right to vote as they’re too stupid, which again is a completely different situation. Apologies if you thought I was being patronising however
That pretty much is my point - you can perform gymnastics around the circumstances but both parties are/have quite clearly run(ning) accounts on social media that are deliberately dressed up to look like they’re from an independent source. I don’t think it’s appropriate to start comparing the two or imply one is worse than the other - both are underhand and should be condemned
You may have made a passing critical comment however it was juxtaposed with a big ‘yeah but the Tories are worse’, which completely undermines that criticism and is the sort of logic that helps encourage this sort of deception | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:24 - Nov 20 with 1329 views | Herbivore |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 15:32 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Literally second video down as follows - no immediate indication it is from Labour and anyone viewing it would easily think this was from an independent source. Pretty obvious that’s not an accident - and also therefore deliberate deceit
|
That's the Radio 4 clip I mentioned and the clip is labelled as such. Where is the deliberate deceit? Do they need to mention Labour in every post when it's plastered all over their twitter page and Labour web links feature in the vast majority of the posts they author? I'm struggling to see how you think this is equivalent to what the Tories did last night. The Tories deliberately changed their handle and logo to make them look like an independent fact checker. That's beyond the pale. [Post edited 20 Nov 2019 16:37]
| |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:25 - Nov 20 with 1325 views | LankHenners |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:11 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
If it’s the one I’m thinking of it was that he was basically suggesting other people shouldn’t have the right to vote as they’re too stupid, which again is a completely different situation. Apologies if you thought I was being patronising however
That pretty much is my point - you can perform gymnastics around the circumstances but both parties are/have quite clearly run(ning) accounts on social media that are deliberately dressed up to look like they’re from an independent source. I don’t think it’s appropriate to start comparing the two or imply one is worse than the other - both are underhand and should be condemned
You may have made a passing critical comment however it was juxtaposed with a big ‘yeah but the Tories are worse’, which completely undermines that criticism and is the sort of logic that helps encourage this sort of deception |
Again, I agree with the general comment that lies/deceit/bullsh!t from anyone is bad (though I think we both know it'll never stop no matter how many people or times it gets pointed out), it was just the specific incident I had issue with, I wasn't saying 'it's only bad/worse when the Tories do it'.
As above, I disagree I did the 'yeah but', but I can see if you think I'm trying to split hairs and lean one way but I guess my quibble is do do with there being a lot of bothsidesism where things that aren't really equivalent get a blanket treatment where there's more nuance sometimes. I think my comment was borne out of frustration that several Tory MPs and supporters were linking to Insider this morning going 'don't look at us, look at them' as a blatant deflection technique which is a bit sh!tty and the sort of thing that makes political discourse very tedious.
I think we'll leave it there as we agree on the broader matter even if we disagree on the specific issue. | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:32 - Nov 20 with 1317 views | GavTWTD |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 08:22 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
They were only visible if you went on their page, on their tweets on twitter feeds the fact check name was all that was visible. You're also assuming that Joe Public knows what CCHQ stands for when there is no mention of the Conservative Party nearby. |
I had no idea what CCHQ was in fact I misread it GCHQ as that made more sense to my little brain when scanning the page. It's pretty low what they did there. |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:39 - Nov 20 with 1303 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:24 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
That's the Radio 4 clip I mentioned and the clip is labelled as such. Where is the deliberate deceit? Do they need to mention Labour in every post when it's plastered all over their twitter page and Labour web links feature in the vast majority of the posts they author? I'm struggling to see how you think this is equivalent to what the Tories did last night. The Tories deliberately changed their handle and logo to make them look like an independent fact checker. That's beyond the pale. [Post edited 20 Nov 2019 16:37]
|
It’s deliberate deceit as it’s clearly designed to look like it hasn’t come from Labour to someone glancing at it. The same applies to the other ones with normal links - scanning in detail you’d see Labour mentioned but the text in the Tweet and image don’t make it immediately apparent, and in a lot of cases that’s all that people would look at
Yes I do think any tweets coming from an arm of a political party should be clear that it’s from that party - rather shocked that you would think otherwise to be honest | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:46 - Nov 20 with 1289 views | bluelagos |
Any need for the word 'Why' in the title? |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 17:18 - Nov 20 with 1264 views | Ryorry |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:32 - Nov 20 by GavTWTD |
I had no idea what CCHQ was in fact I misread it GCHQ as that made more sense to my little brain when scanning the page. It's pretty low what they did there. |
Same here.
Hope they get investigated by the Electoral Commission or whatever appropriate body, because it's not just low, it's a bloomin' scam! |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 18:56 - Nov 20 with 1233 views | Herbivore |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:39 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
It’s deliberate deceit as it’s clearly designed to look like it hasn’t come from Labour to someone glancing at it. The same applies to the other ones with normal links - scanning in detail you’d see Labour mentioned but the text in the Tweet and image don’t make it immediately apparent, and in a lot of cases that’s all that people would look at
Yes I do think any tweets coming from an arm of a political party should be clear that it’s from that party - rather shocked that you would think otherwise to be honest |
I said they should be more transparent more than once but I think you only read what you want to read to be honest. | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:01 - Nov 20 with 1220 views | vapour_trail |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 16:39 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
It’s deliberate deceit as it’s clearly designed to look like it hasn’t come from Labour to someone glancing at it. The same applies to the other ones with normal links - scanning in detail you’d see Labour mentioned but the text in the Tweet and image don’t make it immediately apparent, and in a lot of cases that’s all that people would look at
Yes I do think any tweets coming from an arm of a political party should be clear that it’s from that party - rather shocked that you would think otherwise to be honest |
I’m sorry you’ve lost your sense of reason if you think they equate.
Why has twitter, well known for being remiss for get involved in this stuff, only intervened in the one case? I’m pretty sure it’s not a case of lefty bumism. |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:02 - Nov 20 with 1216 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 18:56 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
I said they should be more transparent more than once but I think you only read what you want to read to be honest. |
No, in the post I replied to you asked ‘Do they need to mention Labour in every post when it's plastered all over their twitter page and Labour web links feature in the vast majority of the posts they author?’
That was the question I was responding to - and one which I’m surprised is even a question | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:19 - Nov 20 with 1195 views | Herbivore |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:02 - Nov 20 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
No, in the post I replied to you asked ‘Do they need to mention Labour in every post when it's plastered all over their twitter page and Labour web links feature in the vast majority of the posts they author?’
That was the question I was responding to - and one which I’m surprised is even a question |
I'm surprised you're surprised it's a question. Actually maybe I'm not. | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:22 - Nov 20 with 1184 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:19 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
I'm surprised you're surprised it's a question. Actually maybe I'm not. |
I thought it would be general consensus that anything a political party puts on social media is clearly denoted as being from said party, but I guess not | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:25 - Nov 20 with 1175 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:01 - Nov 20 by vapour_trail |
I’m sorry you’ve lost your sense of reason if you think they equate.
Why has twitter, well known for being remiss for get involved in this stuff, only intervened in the one case? I’m pretty sure it’s not a case of lefty bumism. |
Because it was high profile and done in a blatant manner
The Labour one is more subtle (which again you could probably argue is worse, if you were the kind of tw*t that seeks to excuse these things), but essentially does the exact same thing
Both are accounts (or were in the CCHQ name change case) clearly designed to obfuscate the source, and both parties should be pulled up on it | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:26 - Nov 20 with 1167 views | jas0999 |
Agreed. But I wouldn’t trust a Corbyn led Labour Party either. Particularly on Brexit. In that lies the problem for many floating voters. |  | | |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:35 - Nov 20 with 1144 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 12:08 - Nov 20 by GlasgowBlue |
These tweets occasionally pop up on my feed. No mention of it being a Labour account when they pop up. Not that this in any way excuses what the Tories did.
https://twitter.com/The_InsiderUK
|
I'm not a huge fan of these accounts trying to suggest they're in some way neutral, but that's clearly a Labour account. I'm not twitter savvy, but even I can work out the "@UKLabour account" and link to the Labour web address means it's a Labour account. It's transparently so. CCHQ removed the mention of being the official Conservative Press Office account. CCHQ isn't intuitive for a lot of people (as proven on this thread).
And besides, has that account ever changed it's branding and removed all explainers to what the account is the exact time there's a leaders debate in a run up to the general election, with the deliberate intention to mislead? No, thought not.
I wish peoople would stop talking ball, as I don't really like defending Labour. |  |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:48 - Nov 20 with 1131 views | Herbivore |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:35 - Nov 20 by Swansea_Blue |
I'm not a huge fan of these accounts trying to suggest they're in some way neutral, but that's clearly a Labour account. I'm not twitter savvy, but even I can work out the "@UKLabour account" and link to the Labour web address means it's a Labour account. It's transparently so. CCHQ removed the mention of being the official Conservative Press Office account. CCHQ isn't intuitive for a lot of people (as proven on this thread).
And besides, has that account ever changed it's branding and removed all explainers to what the account is the exact time there's a leaders debate in a run up to the general election, with the deliberate intention to mislead? No, thought not.
I wish peoople would stop talking ball, as I don't really like defending Labour. |
Yeah but the Labour account did one tweet that doesn't have the word Labour in it. Or something. Healey is so desperate to keep his arse on the fence in seeing both sides as equally bad that, ironically, he's lost all sense of perspective.
This post is brought to you by Herbivore. | |
| |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 20:00 - Nov 20 with 1122 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why you can't trust Tories on 19:48 - Nov 20 by Herbivore |
Yeah but the Labour account did one tweet that doesn't have the word Labour in it. Or something. Healey is so desperate to keep his arse on the fence in seeing both sides as equally bad that, ironically, he's lost all sense of perspective.
This post is brought to you by Herbivore. |
It doesn’t have the Twitter handle @UKLabour though, and numerous tweets of theirs do not link to the Labour website (I specifically mentioned the last one but as per my earlier post this was the case for 4 of the first 7 when I looked at the page earlier)
Good to see your fact checking is as bad as your sarcasm | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
