7 ms·
How do we present evidence for the side that's banned, again?
by rriepe 6y ago
How do we present evidence for the side that's banned, again?
- th0ma5 6y agoLike normal, and that's a disingenuous rebuttal. The evidence is not being suppressed, the misinformation is.
- ttt0 6y agoGoFundMe deplatformed Matt Braynard when he tried to raise money for the voter fraud research. He didn't even assert that the fraud happened or not and they still kicked him off for what they've said is "disinformation".
- alwayseasy 6y agoGoFundMe is allowed to look at off platform behavior to decide.
- ttt0 6y agoThat's cool, but he started the campaign on November 6 and they kicked him out the next day. He didn't say anywhere that the fraud happened or not. He was just raising money for the research.
- th0ma5 6y agoWill they let people raise money to see if theft of a bank is feasible, or to design business models for heroin dealers? They're not robbing banks or selling heroin... Where does your argument even end? It doesn't matter because it is a private platform, and if they smell BS they are free to get rid of it.
- ttt0 6y agoWhat are you even talking about? You can't compare teaching people how to sell heroin or rob a bank and conducting a research. What I take issue with is that they kicked him out for something that he did not do.
- th0ma5 6y agoIf you don't understand rhetorical argument, then I cannot address your falsehoods in a way that is coherent.
- ttt0 6y agoNothing you've said was in any way coherent, while my point is pretty clear. You should not be punished for something you did not do.
- th0ma5 6y agoSounds like he was punished for raising money in bad faith which is exactly how you describe it.
- ttt0 6y agoSounds like you're talking out of your a##, since you have no idea who this person even is. You've said that evidence is not being suppressed. And now you're trying to make all of these mental gymnastics to say that if the research that is necessary to provide you with the evidence challenges your biases then it surely has to mean that it's somehow disingenuous and it's actually a good thing that it's being censored.
- th0ma5 6y agoAgain, if it is ever worth knowing about, I'm sure I'll know about it eventually. Meanwhile, good luck in your crusade or whatever.
- alwayseasy 6y agoHe was part of the Trump campaign in 2016 and from the 3rd to the 6th he interacted with various Twitter accounts that fueled the conspiracy and his fundraising was clearly attracting an audience who read between the lines. GoFundMe is in their right to believe there was dog-whistling.
- ttt0 6y agoAll right then, show me where exactly can you see the dog-whistling here: https://archive.md/e5mwk https://archive.md/e5mwk
- alwayseasy 6y agoI'm not your monkey but this one is easy enough: "Even just a few matches would be indicative of a much more substantial voter fraud operation" said by a Trump supporter who get's the support from a majority of misinformation spreaders when he opens the GoFundMe: https://twitter.com/ZubSpike/status/1324871896689750017 https://twitter.com/ZubSpike/status/1324871896689750017 https://twitter.com/Ester04848788/status/1324535773819924481 https://twitter.com/Ester04848788/status/1324535773819924481
- ttt0 6y agoI often see in twitter bios disclaimers like "opinions are my own" and "retweets are not endorsement". I'm guessing people should now start putting a new disclaimer, them simply being retweeted by someone else doesn't mean that they have anything to do with that person.
- alwayseasy 6y agoIf your audience reacts to content like it's a dog-whistle, maybe don't be surprised when you're banned? Talking about "investigating voter fraud" when Trump was claiming voter fraud with no evidence and then getting retweeted by supporters who already had made up their mind isn't helping GoFundMe determine they are not faced with a dishonest actor. Agreed about disclaimers: Why not go with a disclaimer that says "The president's claims are currently unfounded and have no legal merit and could endanger trust in our democratic process. Some of my analysis could reveal the impact of COVID-19 deaths in some districts or active voter suppression in some states". Enough to tune out misinfo sharers and be a bit more honest about what most analysts predicted would happen.
- th0ma5 6y agoHistorically in the US there have been only a handful of cases where voter fraud overturned an election, and it was in small elections with very narrow margins. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the likes of which will not happen in a GoFundMe. The effort was meant to sow distrust and repeat the weaponized cynicism.
- ttt0 6y agoYou're moving the goalposts.
- th0ma5 6y agoNope! Just stating facts.
- ttt0 6y agoSure, "facts" that are irrelevant to the topic. But if you insist, Matt Braynard managed to raise the money on some other platform and he did found enough potentially illegal votes to swing some states. Mainly people who moved out of state and things like that. So here are your facts.
- ehsankia 6y agoBring the evidence to the court? It's funny how the side claiming there was fraud apparently has trucks full of evidence and affidavits on news channels and social media, but when it comes to an actual courtroom, where lying has real consequences, suddenly, they don't claim "fraud" anymore and they don't have any real evidence.
- chillwaves 6y agoIt's always the same. Lie endlessly the news, and they tell a different story under oath, or they go to jail for it. Over and over again.