12 ms·

1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. 2. Instead of changing people’s mi

by dannyw 6y ago

1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. 2. Instead of changing people’s minds (isn’t the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive that people rarely change political viewpoints?), people flock to “community bubbles” like Parler, TheDonald, etc where they feel welcome. 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the likes of “immigrants bad” we saw in 2016 to disputing and attempting to overturn democracy.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
Platforms are not limiting “viewpoints” unless by viewpoints you mean something like hate speech, threats of violence, doxxing, etc.
- dannyw 6y ago
  On reddit, these reasons you mention are selectively enforced and often actually made by people trying to get the subreddits banned. Bans are also familial: reddit tends to do “ban waves” where they also ban similar subreddits, irrespective of whether they have rule violations or not. There’s no communication; no appeals; no “you got this wrong”. If you’ve ever participated in one of the banned subreddits; you’ll know “hate speech” or “doxxing” are a big fat lie. WE are the ones getting doxxed and brigaded! It’s not too different to police using marijuana laws to target Black communities. In a free-to-join community of thousands to millions of people, you will get people breaking the rules. Moderators clean them up. The only difference is unwelcome viewpoints get their subreddit banned with this as the pretext. Source: moderator of 3 banned subreddits; from political to sexual kinks like consensual rape fetishes (which 31% of women say they have fantasises; just FYI). Admins have never; ever, ever engaged with us during my tenures.
rayiner 6y ago
Donald Trump attacked illegal immigration specifically: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/... Also, he attacked accepting refugees from certain high-risk countries (which had been designated as such by the Obama administration). He didn’t say “immigrants bad.” > Kaine has embellished the controversy by saying Trump has said "all Mexicans are rapists." The Democrat doesn’t come close to proving his claim; all of the Trump quotes Kaine’s campaign sent us pertain to unauthorized immigrants crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... > Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. Journalists can’t help allowing their point of view to influence their reporting. But when someone can just pull up as transcript and say “well he didn’t really say that” that damages the credibility of the media. Even if what he actually said was wrong or bad on its own merits. This is what drives people to alternative media silos, and that’s bad because people are no longer operating from the same facts.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... I don't believe Clinton ever attacked the integrity of the election process itself. She did claim (and as far as I'm aware the investigations more or less supported the claims) that the Trump campaign colluded with foreign governments to influence the election.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out” - Hillary Clinton Seems like Trump has taken her advice. At this point she really should just retire from politics and spend her hundreds of millions of dollars living the good life. She doesn’t do Democrats any favors.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      So are you claiming that Clinton's suggestion that we wait until absentee ballots are included before letting someone claim victory is "disputing ... democracy", or are you trying to change the subject to something else?
      - nostromo 6y ago
        Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. Hillary said this might drag out for a while... and she was right, it is. That’s fine. We have a process for this; no need to be melodramatic. Biden has almost assuredly won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. That’s a good thing for Democracy.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. The trump campaign is literally putting forth the unfounded conspiracy theory that Democratic-party-affiliated groups some how placed fraudulent ballots, and that this is the only reason Trump lost. > Biden has very likely won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. There aren't actually. Biden doesn't need to carry any states with recounts to win. Pennsylvania isn't going to a recount, nor is Arizona. Even if GA and Wisconsin flip on a recount, Biden has carried the electoral college. All of the court cases so far have have been thrown out or withdrawn. Despite this, Trump continues to claim that there was election fraud (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327750127679889409 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13277501276798894...), even after his own lawyers have dropped suits in Arizona and Pennsylvania, and have yet to, in any suit in any state, provide an example of fraud. There's no substance to his claims, and when in front of a judge, the lawyers admit that. And yet.
joshuamorton 6y ago
This is certainly a line of thinking. Of course the alternative is: 1. Tech platforms were too slow with limiting extremist viewpoints 2. Instead of keeping extremist views isolated, this allowed them to pick up more support. These groups continue to move more and more extreme, and more popular. 3. Delays in taking action to prevent the spread of these views allowed the combination of extremism and popular support that empowered people to make outrageous claims. Of course, the presidential bully pulpit being used to stoke these ideas didn't help. We could argue about which of these mis more likely all day.
- Veen 6y ago
  I agreed with you until the last paragraph, where it became clear that your problem isn’t with extreme views in general, just the sort of extreme views Trump is likely to endorse. That’s exactly the bias that people behind Parler aim to exploit (or provide an escape from, depending on your view)
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I was discussing the exact same set of views as the parent: those espoused on "Parler, TheDonald, etc" (and also subtly objecting to the parent's proposed timeline. The_donald started self-radicalizing long before it was quarantined. In fact, it was the radicalization that took place in the Donald that led to its subsequent quarantine and removal). I certainly do take issue with extreme views on the other side, but those views are usually things like crystal healing, not Coups.
    - Veen 6y ago
      I imagine this view will not be looked on with approval, but the ethos espoused by the BLM cadre is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-police. To many who are right of center, that looks like an extreme left-wing view that is not only tolerated by tech and social media companies, but actively promoted. It’s not all crystals and homeopathy.
      - 6y ago
forest_dweller 6y ago
> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. Back in the late 2000s and early 2010s many of these large companies billed themselves as open platforms where you can express yourself. Twitter's Jack Dorsey said in 2012 that "We are the free speech wing of the free speech part". Now he says it was joke. The terms of service on these platforms appears to be enforced selectively, information appears to be selectively censored and a lot of the time it appears to be based on their politics. Also a lot of internet jokes that have been around for years are being censored because the people doing the moderation don't understand the odder internet subcultures. So It isn't just tech platforms being uncomfortable with certain viewpoints. It a combination of things that make it seem that these companies are censoring viewpoints (some not even that extreme) on one side of the political spectrum. That is what people are complaining about. > people flock to “community bubbles” like Parler, TheDonald, etc where they feel welcome. This isn't true. People are removed from platforms and go to another service where they won't be censored or banned and then a bubble forms. > 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the likes of “immigrants bad” we saw in 2016 to disputing and attempting to overturn democracy. This is a strawman of what these people believe. The vast majority of American conservatives and Trump supporters I know don't say "immigrants are bad". They said "Illegal Immigrants are bad". There is a very important difference. The former is clearly xenophobia, the latter is not. As for "over turning democracy". They see that there was a lot of odd things that seemed to happening upto and including election night. They feel that there has been voter fraud. Whether that is true or not I have no idea and it looks like it will be settled in court. But they believe they are preserving democracy not overturning it.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > This isn't true. People are removed from platforms and go to another service where they won't be censored or banned and then a bubble forms. I’m not sure the bulk of the people currently flocking to Parler were ones who were removed from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit. Especially when they use those sites to announce their move.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
ardy42 6y ago
> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. For the most part, those "viewpoints" are verifiable falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and other types of disinformation and misinformation. For instance, the recent migrations to Parler are chiefly people who want to deny the legitimate US presidential election result and spread false claims of widespread vote fraud. Using the term "viewpoint" like you did is misleading, since it has the effect of making literal lies sound like legitimate differences of opinion. > 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the likes of “immigrants bad” we saw in 2016 to disputing and attempting to overturn democracy. Eh, not so much. A lot of the recent "increasing extremism" (for instance QAnon and Boogaloo Bois), occurred on mainstream social networks like Facebook and Twitter. While pushing crazies and extremists to places like Gab and Parler probably radicalizes many of them further, it also isolates them from the wider community, which helps reduce their ability to recruit new people into their lunacy.
- Hermel 6y ago
  So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. Btw: I think conspiracy theories are good indicators for what certain people want to believe. I personally don't want to be disconnected from these indicators.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. However, the conspiracy theorists don't seem to like it when Twitter exercises its rights by labeling their tweets, like in this case. As for why this matters, people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth prevails in public discourse, and that lies find the habitat difficult.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      "Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. When platforms like Facebook and Twitter become the arbiter of what's "right"? Then people will leave those platforms because lawfully they have the "right" to censor their platform... but people WILL talk about it elsewhere. Facebook/Twitter may win this "battle" by purposefully influencing an election by hiding disinformation they disagree with (while allowing disinformation they are okay with)... but they'll lose the war as other platforms gain momentum and legitimacy. The internet will route itself around the censorship.
m0zg 6y ago
> immigrants bad This is 100% gaslighting by mainstream media. Immigration _per se_ isn't bad. I say so as an immigrant myself. Trump is married to an immigrant. But unrestricted low-skill illegal migration in tens of millions is most definitely bad, and it leads to modern day slavery, while at the same time depressing the wages of the working poor and making them dependent on welfare. That's why Kochs want it so much. So bad, in fact, that Barack Obama deported a lot more illegal migrants than Trump ever did. So long standing that Bill Clinton highlighted the issue in his 1995 State of the Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA. So severe that Hillary Clinton voted for a border wall: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas/did-hillary-clinton-support-border-wall-mexico/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas.... Immigration from countries where one can't even meaningfully do a background check is also bad. Skilled immigration program abused to get H1B wage slaves to the detriment of US grads who are drowning in debt is very bad indeed. > disputing and attempting to overturn democracy Nobody is "attempting to overturn democracy". There are hundreds of sworn affidavits and abundant video evidence of election irregularities. This needs to be followed up on, for the same reason why Nancy Pelosi was calling for the same in 2017: https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080 https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080. She spent _4 years_ undermining the choice of the American people, and by extension "democracy". Presenting evidence in the court of law is democracy. If evidence is shit (as it was in Pelosi's case), the court will throw it out. If it's not you should be just as interested in hearing about it, because such things tend to backfire, just like Harry Reid's filibuster fiasco did. Here's an explanation of what happened to you that will alleviate your cognitive dissonance somewhat: https://twitter.com/astateofEmily/status/1327079491760361472 https://twitter.com/astateofEmily/status/1327079491760361472
- pjc50 6y ago
  > Presenting evidence in the court of law is democracy. If evidence is shit, the court will throw it out. This has happened in all the lawsuits so far, I believe?
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > This has happened in all the lawsuits so far, I believe? You're being gaslit about that too, although yes, some motions were denied and some lawsuits were rejected outright. Watch the last link in my original post. It explains the propaganda barrage perfectly. There are a bunch of deadlines and appellate levels baked into this process for a reason. If Al Gore could hold things up for over a month over a few hundred votes, all the concerns about following lawful process are null and void. Same with histrionics about "overturning democracy". The choice is pretty simple even to Trump voters: either Trump finds the smoking gun and deservedly gets a second term, or he's full of shit and he doesn't deserve a second term. Nobody on the right will set cities on fire either way.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
If your idea of a solution includes people arguing with other folks about whether or not their humanity should be recognized, then you will be surprised when no one meets you halfway. It's a horribly simple bad faith argument that anyone should try to "convince" or coddle folks who hold signs such as >"Coming for Blacks and Indians first welcome to the New World Order." at their rallies. https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-anchor-pauses-mid-segment-over-very-disturbing-sign-at-maga-rally?ref=home https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-anchor-pauses-mid-segment-...
Lammy 6y ago
> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. Don't make the mistake of assuming these decisions are informed by anything except estimates of what will make them the most money.
mcintyre1994 6y ago
I wouldn't downplay where they were in 2016. TD was crawling with things like Pinochet helicopter kill all leftists, celebrating punching protestors. Their "community bubbles" were never a place to respectfully disagree about immigration policy which you can and always have been able to do on whatever platform you like.

by dannyw 6y ago

cycrutchfield 6y ago

Platforms are not limiting “viewpoints” unless by viewpoints you mean something like hate speech, threats of violence, doxxing, etc.

dannyw 6y ago
On reddit, these reasons you mention are selectively enforced and often actually made by people trying to get the subreddits banned. Bans are also familial: reddit tends to do “ban waves” where they also ban similar subreddits, irrespective of whether they have rule violations or not. There’s no communication; no appeals; no “you got this wrong”. If you’ve ever participated in one of the banned subreddits; you’ll know “hate speech” or “doxxing” are a big fat lie. WE are the ones getting doxxed and brigaded! It’s not too different to police using marijuana laws to target Black communities. In a free-to-join community of thousands to millions of people, you will get people breaking the rules. Moderators clean them up. The only difference is unwelcome viewpoints get their subreddit banned with this as the pretext. Source: moderator of 3 banned subreddits; from political to sexual kinks like consensual rape fetishes (which 31% of women say they have fantasises; just FYI). Admins have never; ever, ever engaged with us during my tenures.

rayiner 6y ago

Donald Trump attacked illegal immigration specifically: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/... Also, he attacked accepting refugees from certain high-risk countries (which had been designated as such by the Obama administration). He didn’t say “immigrants bad.” > Kaine has embellished the controversy by saying Trump has said "all Mexicans are rapists." The Democrat doesn’t come close to proving his claim; all of the Trump quotes Kaine’s campaign sent us pertain to unauthorized immigrants crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... > Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. Journalists can’t help allowing their point of view to influence their reporting. But when someone can just pull up as transcript and say “well he didn’t really say that” that damages the credibility of the media. Even if what he actually said was wrong or bad on its own merits. This is what drives people to alternative media silos, and that’s bad because people are no longer operating from the same facts.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... I don't believe Clinton ever attacked the integrity of the election process itself. She did claim (and as far as I'm aware the investigations more or less supported the claims) that the Trump campaign colluded with foreign governments to influence the election.
- nostromo 6y ago
  “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out” - Hillary Clinton Seems like Trump has taken her advice. At this point she really should just retire from politics and spend her hundreds of millions of dollars living the good life. She doesn’t do Democrats any favors.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    So are you claiming that Clinton's suggestion that we wait until absentee ballots are included before letting someone claim victory is "disputing ... democracy", or are you trying to change the subject to something else?
    - nostromo 6y ago
      Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. Hillary said this might drag out for a while... and she was right, it is. That’s fine. We have a process for this; no need to be melodramatic. Biden has almost assuredly won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. That’s a good thing for Democracy.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. The trump campaign is literally putting forth the unfounded conspiracy theory that Democratic-party-affiliated groups some how placed fraudulent ballots, and that this is the only reason Trump lost. > Biden has very likely won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. There aren't actually. Biden doesn't need to carry any states with recounts to win. Pennsylvania isn't going to a recount, nor is Arizona. Even if GA and Wisconsin flip on a recount, Biden has carried the electoral college. All of the court cases so far have have been thrown out or withdrawn. Despite this, Trump continues to claim that there was election fraud (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327750127679889409 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13277501276798894...), even after his own lawyers have dropped suits in Arizona and Pennsylvania, and have yet to, in any suit in any state, provide an example of fraud. There's no substance to his claims, and when in front of a judge, the lawyers admit that. And yet.

joshuamorton 6y ago

This is certainly a line of thinking. Of course the alternative is: 1. Tech platforms were too slow with limiting extremist viewpoints 2. Instead of keeping extremist views isolated, this allowed them to pick up more support. These groups continue to move more and more extreme, and more popular. 3. Delays in taking action to prevent the spread of these views allowed the combination of extremism and popular support that empowered people to make outrageous claims. Of course, the presidential bully pulpit being used to stoke these ideas didn't help. We could argue about which of these mis more likely all day.

Veen 6y ago
I agreed with you until the last paragraph, where it became clear that your problem isn’t with extreme views in general, just the sort of extreme views Trump is likely to endorse. That’s exactly the bias that people behind Parler aim to exploit (or provide an escape from, depending on your view)
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I was discussing the exact same set of views as the parent: those espoused on "Parler, TheDonald, etc" (and also subtly objecting to the parent's proposed timeline. The_donald started self-radicalizing long before it was quarantined. In fact, it was the radicalization that took place in the Donald that led to its subsequent quarantine and removal). I certainly do take issue with extreme views on the other side, but those views are usually things like crystal healing, not Coups.
  - Veen 6y ago
    I imagine this view will not be looked on with approval, but the ethos espoused by the BLM cadre is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-police. To many who are right of center, that looks like an extreme left-wing view that is not only tolerated by tech and social media companies, but actively promoted. It’s not all crystals and homeopathy.
    - 6y ago

forest_dweller 6y ago

> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. Back in the late 2000s and early 2010s many of these large companies billed themselves as open platforms where you can express yourself. Twitter's Jack Dorsey said in 2012 that "We are the free speech wing of the free speech part". Now he says it was joke. The terms of service on these platforms appears to be enforced selectively, information appears to be selectively censored and a lot of the time it appears to be based on their politics. Also a lot of internet jokes that have been around for years are being censored because the people doing the moderation don't understand the odder internet subcultures. So It isn't just tech platforms being uncomfortable with certain viewpoints. It a combination of things that make it seem that these companies are censoring viewpoints (some not even that extreme) on one side of the political spectrum. That is what people are complaining about. > people flock to “community bubbles” like Parler, TheDonald, etc where they feel welcome. This isn't true. People are removed from platforms and go to another service where they won't be censored or banned and then a bubble forms. > 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the likes of “immigrants bad” we saw in 2016 to disputing and attempting to overturn democracy. This is a strawman of what these people believe. The vast majority of American conservatives and Trump supporters I know don't say "immigrants are bad". They said "Illegal Immigrants are bad". There is a very important difference. The former is clearly xenophobia, the latter is not. As for "over turning democracy". They see that there was a lot of odd things that seemed to happening upto and including election night. They feel that there has been voter fraud. Whether that is true or not I have no idea and it looks like it will be settled in court. But they believe they are preserving democracy not overturning it.

mcphage 6y ago
> This isn't true. People are removed from platforms and go to another service where they won't be censored or banned and then a bubble forms. I’m not sure the bulk of the people currently flocking to Parler were ones who were removed from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit. Especially when they use those sites to announce their move.
- forest_dweller 6y ago

ardy42 6y ago

> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. For the most part, those "viewpoints" are verifiable falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and other types of disinformation and misinformation. For instance, the recent migrations to Parler are chiefly people who want to deny the legitimate US presidential election result and spread false claims of widespread vote fraud. Using the term "viewpoint" like you did is misleading, since it has the effect of making literal lies sound like legitimate differences of opinion. > 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the likes of “immigrants bad” we saw in 2016 to disputing and attempting to overturn democracy. Eh, not so much. A lot of the recent "increasing extremism" (for instance QAnon and Boogaloo Bois), occurred on mainstream social networks like Facebook and Twitter. While pushing crazies and extremists to places like Gab and Parler probably radicalizes many of them further, it also isolates them from the wider community, which helps reduce their ability to recruit new people into their lunacy.

Hermel 6y ago
So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. Btw: I think conspiracy theories are good indicators for what certain people want to believe. I personally don't want to be disconnected from these indicators.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. However, the conspiracy theorists don't seem to like it when Twitter exercises its rights by labeling their tweets, like in this case. As for why this matters, people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth prevails in public discourse, and that lies find the habitat difficult.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    "Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. When platforms like Facebook and Twitter become the arbiter of what's "right"? Then people will leave those platforms because lawfully they have the "right" to censor their platform... but people WILL talk about it elsewhere. Facebook/Twitter may win this "battle" by purposefully influencing an election by hiding disinformation they disagree with (while allowing disinformation they are okay with)... but they'll lose the war as other platforms gain momentum and legitimacy. The internet will route itself around the censorship.

m0zg 6y ago

> immigrants bad This is 100% gaslighting by mainstream media. Immigration _per se_ isn't bad. I say so as an immigrant myself. Trump is married to an immigrant. But unrestricted low-skill illegal migration in tens of millions is most definitely bad, and it leads to modern day slavery, while at the same time depressing the wages of the working poor and making them dependent on welfare. That's why Kochs want it so much. So bad, in fact, that Barack Obama deported a lot more illegal migrants than Trump ever did. So long standing that Bill Clinton highlighted the issue in his 1995 State of the Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA. So severe that Hillary Clinton voted for a border wall: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas/did-hillary-clinton-support-border-wall-mexico/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas.... Immigration from countries where one can't even meaningfully do a background check is also bad. Skilled immigration program abused to get H1B wage slaves to the detriment of US grads who are drowning in debt is very bad indeed. > disputing and attempting to overturn democracy Nobody is "attempting to overturn democracy". There are hundreds of sworn affidavits and abundant video evidence of election irregularities. This needs to be followed up on, for the same reason why Nancy Pelosi was calling for the same in 2017: https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080 https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080. She spent _4 years_ undermining the choice of the American people, and by extension "democracy". Presenting evidence in the court of law is democracy. If evidence is shit (as it was in Pelosi's case), the court will throw it out. If it's not you should be just as interested in hearing about it, because such things tend to backfire, just like Harry Reid's filibuster fiasco did. Here's an explanation of what happened to you that will alleviate your cognitive dissonance somewhat: https://twitter.com/astateofEmily/status/1327079491760361472 https://twitter.com/astateofEmily/status/1327079491760361472

pjc50 6y ago
> Presenting evidence in the court of law is democracy. If evidence is shit, the court will throw it out. This has happened in all the lawsuits so far, I believe?
- m0zg 6y ago
  > This has happened in all the lawsuits so far, I believe? You're being gaslit about that too, although yes, some motions were denied and some lawsuits were rejected outright. Watch the last link in my original post. It explains the propaganda barrage perfectly. There are a bunch of deadlines and appellate levels baked into this process for a reason. If Al Gore could hold things up for over a month over a few hundred votes, all the concerns about following lawful process are null and void. Same with histrionics about "overturning democracy". The choice is pretty simple even to Trump voters: either Trump finds the smoking gun and deservedly gets a second term, or he's full of shit and he doesn't deserve a second term. Nobody on the right will set cities on fire either way.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

If your idea of a solution includes people arguing with other folks about whether or not their humanity should be recognized, then you will be surprised when no one meets you halfway. It's a horribly simple bad faith argument that anyone should try to "convince" or coddle folks who hold signs such as >"Coming for Blacks and Indians first welcome to the New World Order." at their rallies. https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-anchor-pauses-mid-segment-over-very-disturbing-sign-at-maga-rally?ref=home https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-anchor-pauses-mid-segment-...

Lammy 6y ago

> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. Don't make the mistake of assuming these decisions are informed by anything except estimates of what will make them the most money.

mcintyre1994 6y ago

I wouldn't downplay where they were in 2016. TD was crawling with things like Pinochet helicopter kill all leftists, celebrating punching protestors. Their "community bubbles" were never a place to respectfully disagree about immigration policy which you can and always have been able to do on whatever platform you like.