Periodically I'll use Twitter as a means of scanning information collection in semi-real time. I also like to make jokes. On June 11, I made the mistake of engaging someone who had retweeted purported evidence of electoral fraud. Here's a conspiratorial form of the tweet in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltv0NF9-hvU
Unfortunately @truthglow blocked me for pointing out that the video she retweeted wasn't evidence of fraud, so I cannot see which posting of the youtube video they actually posted (I actually think it was this - http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-sanders-vote-goes-another-candidate/). However, I googled or youtube searched the title and came upon the actual filmer's posting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3kCfDFu4p8. Their description reads thus: "This is a companion video to the link below, where the same thing happened when I tried to vote for Hillary Clinton. The issue is with the calibration of the voting machine and applied to all the candidates. Wherever you clicked, the machine mistakenly checked the candidate above where you clicked. So you had to press on the row below the name of the candidate you want to vote for. To see Hillary mishap click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHOqLeCMgr4"
My concern on this matter has to do with persuasion. I know how difficult it is to convince people, firmly rooted in their belief that there is no fraud (regardless of any evidence shown), after extensively attempting to get reputable and widely perceived allegations of fraud and irregularities inserted into wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Msheflin) - and some of these pages may still be up whenever people read this, but they've basically all been summarily censored, which is why I've copied them into my user page and into this Wikia.
But it's considerably more difficult when people post information about fraud that is known to be false or that they should know is false.
Worse still, when I attempted to politely point this out, I had hate heaped on me and was repeatedly blocked and accused of being an anonymous Clinton troll. Ironic since I use my real name and these guys all have pseudonyms. I delete all my tweets as a matter of course, but I deleted these because I was deeply put off and offended by their response. I spent 11 hours at Sanders' NJ HQ manning the voter protection hotline on NJ's primary election day (June 7, 2016) - while fasting for Ramadan. On that day I firsthand witnessed fraud, electioneering, and irregularities. I have chosen to devote a part of my future career as a lawyer to challenging and combating election fraud. So to have some trolls online accuse of me of being a shill for Secretary Clinton is deeply offensive. Their efforts could probably be better used on the ground somewhere.
The list of those users is: @Reddword, who accused me of being one of a growing number of "trolls who pose as Bernie supporters giving up." When I sent that person this link, they explained "That [I am] an egghead with very few followers means you get blocked, not a response, Mmmkay?" @Long_Archer implied that I was abusive without justification and accused me of being a Clinton troll. @Rosevine3 simply said "Troll BLOCK. Read my tweet! BYEBYE" Of course, as with all these delusional and - ostensibly - extremely insecure responses, there was no tweet to read.
They've all blocked me - except for @LongArcher - so, notwithstanding their introspection, I am concerned they will still not realize that the author of the video they posted has explained this was merely a touchscreen miscalibration issue. It was not fraud directed at Senator Sanders. To assert thus makes it much more difficult for those of us actually monitoring and cataloging fraud to continue doing so.
I am also concerned that, as a staunch Sanders supporter - a donor from before he declared - that these people feed into concerns over (I had thought to this point totally false and spurious) "Bernie Bros" rumors.