3 ms·

He 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

He 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 ago
All right then, show me where exactly can you see the dog-whistling here: https://archive.md/e5mwk https://archive.md/e5mwk
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  I'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 ago
    I 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 ago
      If 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.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        Actually yes, I would be surprised, because it would be completely fucked, excuse my language. Punishing someone on the basis of other people's reaction is just one step away from collective responsibility, and that's what happens during wars and occupations. A lot of innocent people were murdered because of reasoning like that. I might have sounded a little bit too dramatic considering the fact that the tweets in question didn't even say anything bad, but whatever. Also, "dog-whistles", lol. You're clearly just making stuff up at this point. Braynard didn't do anything wrong and removing his fundraiser from GoFundMe was baseless and unfair.
        alwayseasy 6y ago
        Speech is dependent on context and audience. I realize there are some basic concepts around speech we don't seem to share. Your argument that anyone can write anything no matter context or audience reactions and face no consequences is baffling. I guess no one was ever murdered because of that... A Trump political operative is expected to have taken some level of history and political science classes though. GoFundMe probably thought he had a better understanding of the impact and context of his online discourse than a libertarian college drop-out might argue.
        ttt0 6y ago
        This is not speech, it's just a fundraiser for research. And Braynard already achieved his goals, he did the research that he wanted and the results are included in lawsuits as evidence. Deplatforming him, if anything, only gave him more exposure. GoFundMe was wrong about their decision, end of story.
        th0ma5 6y ago
        LOL now you can't accept you lost?
        alwayseasy 6y ago
        Haha the argument became "GoFundMe is censoring free speech but actually it's not speech it's just fundraising."

ttt0 6y ago

All right then, show me where exactly can you see the dog-whistling here: https://archive.md/e5mwk https://archive.md/e5mwk

alwayseasy 6y ago
I'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    If 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.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Actually yes, I would be surprised, because it would be completely fucked, excuse my language. Punishing someone on the basis of other people's reaction is just one step away from collective responsibility, and that's what happens during wars and occupations. A lot of innocent people were murdered because of reasoning like that. I might have sounded a little bit too dramatic considering the fact that the tweets in question didn't even say anything bad, but whatever. Also, "dog-whistles", lol. You're clearly just making stuff up at this point. Braynard didn't do anything wrong and removing his fundraiser from GoFundMe was baseless and unfair.
      - alwayseasy 6y ago
        Speech is dependent on context and audience. I realize there are some basic concepts around speech we don't seem to share. Your argument that anyone can write anything no matter context or audience reactions and face no consequences is baffling. I guess no one was ever murdered because of that... A Trump political operative is expected to have taken some level of history and political science classes though. GoFundMe probably thought he had a better understanding of the impact and context of his online discourse than a libertarian college drop-out might argue.
        ttt0 6y ago
        This is not speech, it's just a fundraiser for research. And Braynard already achieved his goals, he did the research that he wanted and the results are included in lawsuits as evidence. Deplatforming him, if anything, only gave him more exposure. GoFundMe was wrong about their decision, end of story.
        th0ma5 6y ago
        LOL now you can't accept you lost?
        alwayseasy 6y ago
        Haha the argument became "GoFundMe is censoring free speech but actually it's not speech it's just fundraising."