8 ms·

To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway

To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, there might have been something fishy going on in the voting process. Why would they otherwise go through so lengthy processes in order to stop the spreading of this information ? Claiming it is because of possible violence seems unbelievable, seeing as it is arms manufacturers and so on still have a voice on these platforms, like Raytheon and what have you, who are killing more people every day through their actions than what this political upheaving has done. To me, it seems that some parties are ready to stomp on freedom of speech as a basic right in order to make sure that this information does not get to spread. Why, I ask ? Why would they be so interested in this fact ? Is it a threat to them ? Why suddenly all platforms are stopping the spreading of this information. I just ask this, to me it seems like they have a lot to lose perhaps in this game personally, the owners of these platforms. Maybe we should just ban everything, I mean, look at Uganda for example what they are doing before the elections: https://techjaja.com/govt-blocks-google-playstore-apple-appstore-and-youtube/ https://techjaja.com/govt-blocks-google-playstore-apple-apps.... Banning all play store, app store and youtube :D Is this the next step then? Sounds like those who own these platforms are starting to show their true nature.

loceng 6y ago
You're leading into paranoia. There's been no evidence of mass voter fraud - there are systems in place, poll watchers that people from both main parties are party to overseeing the counting. All these actions from platforms is to prevent, limit, curb violence. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy. You're either for non-violence and a civil, reasoning-reasonable society - or you are living in ignorance is bliss and you don't care if there's chaos and the world burns. Also, no one's freedom of speech has been taken away. These are private platforms, they're not the public space - the internet itself is the neutral platform, likewise these people have other means to communicate. They don't get the automatic right to using the most convenient technology provided by private companies though. The military industrial complex is a whole different beast than this one currently playing out; yes, it's still a problem along with the duopoly, Andrew Yang's core policy proposals will break apart the duopoly and counter regulatory capture.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  There is plenty of evidence of election fraud. Refusing to address it just makes the issue worse, leading to exactly what happened.
  - loceng 6y ago
    No evidence of mass fraud is what I said, and arguably the majority of fraud and interference is from Republicans - gerrymandering including literally trying to dismantle the USPS. Why did all of the judges throw out the cases brought forward to judges in different states? It's because they didn't present any evidence. I find it fascinating that it's assumed if there's fraud it's to benefit Biden, and also that if Trump won then they'd consider the election fair. Also, during recounts that did happen there were more votes for Biden that were added - which perhaps suggests there was fraud during counting in favour of Trump - however Trump's vote count went up too from what I remember, but the proportion was that Biden had more votes that were missed during the first count; I haven't looked into confirming this though.
  - nmfisher 6y ago
    I don't support the Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc censorship at all. With that established, I want to point out that the comment you responded to said there was no evidence of mass voter fraud. I think it's impossible for a country the size of the USA to hold an election with literally zero cases of voter fraud. The yardstick is whether there's evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could conceivably even remotely impact the results of the election. Of that, there is none.
    - ctdonath 6y ago
      Semantics. Don’t need “mass” if targeted distortions in a few counting centers throws the outcome. Yes, consequential abnormalities in key locations were apparent.
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
        So provide the evidence rather than mere assertion. And, is there no way to do this without Twitter or Facebook? Have we no television news? No newspapers? No court system with judges amiable to the President’s party? It’s a farce.
loopz 6y ago
What information do you mean?
foolmeonce 6y ago
Trump has even more extremely demonstrated that the US has insufficient checks on a president. Both parties are equally upset by the threat of a President from the other party. Why would any future president not claim victory in an election he lost after this debacle? Why would any president not commit crimes to hold power and then need to keep it within his allies to prevent his prosecution? Structurally the US is dysfunctional. But whichever party thinks it has 4-8years of control will block reform.
- pjc50 6y ago
  I suspect the logical outcome of this is a Parliamentary system where the President requires the explicit approval of both houses. If the two houses go one way and the presidency the other, the president will be impeached and removed. The Clinton presidency was the dry run for this.
  - learc83 6y ago
    Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate. It’s unlikely that every member of a party would vote for removal without a clear, major violation. So the only way your scenario works out is if the Senate has 70 or so members from the party opposing the President. A split like that is very unlikely.
- loceng 6y ago
  The system is working relatively well - though there can be tweaks; if Biden didn't win then we'd be in a lot more trouble. Trump in fact has allowed the swamp to be cleared as he promised, as we can see the treasonous Republican senators who allowed all of this behaviour to continue by not removing Trump - the House impeached him, then it was the Senate"s job to confirm. Trump exposed the rot, how far they're willing to go, showed us all their true colours that Trump's a wannabe tyrant and the Republican senators are happy to fall in line with that. He's also exposed the flaws in systems that allowed him and others to manipulate Americans for decades. Thankfully Biden won and I believe full out civil war can be avoided now, so long as these systems including the duopoly and mainstream media's ability to lie, to only tell one narrative; the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated as review recommended by Andrew Yang, along with his core policy proposals will adequately counter these problems.
AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
This has been exactly my contention since basically this all started. I'm not convinced there was fraud, or fraud sufficient to sway the election. However, the media and the powers that be are doing their best to convince me that there is something to it by censoring all opposing viewpoints. Like, I didn't vote for Trump, and these voter fraud people seem not very credible, but when you crack down on them with the weight of the entire establishment, I can only conclude that you're afraid of what they have to say.
pjc50 6y ago
The thing is there has been all sorts of "fishy" stuff happening in elections .. to benefit Republicans. They used "ballot security" as cover for voter intimidation, resulting in a consent decree: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent-decree-lifted-against-rncs-ballot-security-measures?t=1610451725505 https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent... (ended in 2018) The current election cases filed by the Republicans have almost all been abandoned or thrown out. > Claiming it is because of possible violence The violence already happened on the 6th. Several people are dead as a result, and the protestors got very close to the elected representatives.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Youtube started removing election questioning after the safe harbor deadline in mid-December. There had not been any violence at that point.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  And the elephant in the room: Gerrymandering.
  - onethought 6y ago
    The bigger one seems the electoral college... gerrymandering seems more dramatic in senate races and state legislatures
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > gerrymandering seems more dramatic in senate races You can't really gerrymander senate races, since they're based on [basically-] fixed state borders.
      - onethought 6y ago
        Sorry I count 2 senators regardless of population as gerrymandering in my head... but you are right it’s not. It’s still part of the stupid setup though.
CamperBob2 6y ago
To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, there might have been something fishy going on in the voting process. You may have noticed that our president recently exhorted a gang of insurgents to break into the seat of the country's legislative branch and attempt to stop the process of counting the votes from the individual states that elected his rival. While this insurrection was unsuccessful, several people were killed. The president's own party is unwilling to take action against him, and the opposition party is not yet empowered to do so. You may also have noticed that the social media companies had previously taken little or no action against the president until this happened. You may, not unreasonably, assume that the two events are connected. This isn't censorship of unpopular views, it's an immune response against malicious lies.
- NinjaSaves 6y ago
  You may have noticed that The Squad & Co. has been exhorting violence for 4 years. The violent idiots on the 6th probably just assumed that's how things go now: you lose, you get to be violent now, and the news will quietly sweep it aside and call you peaceful. This is more of a comment on our broken communication and information apparatus as a species than on anything political.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Possibly. People who are stupid enough to assault the Capitol building without an actual army behind them are likely more than stupid enough to draw false equivalencies between civil disturbances prompted by documented instances of injustice and a coup attempt based on nothing but bluster and lies.
    - lol2143651 6y ago
      Or they just thought protesting politicians in official gov't buildings is far more legitimate than destroying the homes and businesses of the innocent.
ceejayoz 6y ago
> To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, there might have been something fishy going on in the voting process. What non-US citizens tend to miss is that the distributed nature of American elections makes that extraordinarily unlikely. Elections are managed almost entirely at the state and local level in the US. For example, Georgia's win was certified and defended by a Republican Governor and Secretary of State. Their results come from the county level, of which there are over three thousand in the US, many of which are heavily Republican, and each of which is responsible for its own election setup, count, and verification. You'd have to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of election officials and volunteers to participate and cover it up.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >the distributed nature of American election >Their results come from the county level, of which there are over three thousand in the US, many of which are heavily Republican, and each of which is responsible for its own election setup, count, and verification. >You'd have to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of election officials and volunteers to participate and cover it up. Tell that to Al Gore. Our elections are so "distributed" that every presidential election in the past 50yr or so has comes down to a number of counties you can count on two hands in a number of states you can count on one hand. The election may be distributed but the results in the overwhelming majority of states is a foregone conclusion. I don't see how anyone can call our (presidential) elections distributed with a straight face. Take Georgia, the example you picked. As usual the rural areas went red, the suburbs went a red or blue shade of purple and the city went blue. At the end of the day the question was whether there was enough blue in the city to exceed the red everywhere else. And this is why there's always a big argument over whether or not a fraction of a percent of inner city voters at the margin are being disfranchised by this or that policy. Basically every state goes down in this manner, albeit that in most of them the proportion between red voters and blue voters is different enough you can be reasonably sure of the results in advance. So the presidential election always comes down to a handful of city counties that will or won't flip their states red/blue based on turnout. (See also, why using gerrymandering to carve up cities to minimize or maximize their representation is such a big problem). Our elections are "distributed" in name only.
codingprograms 6y ago
I completely agree. This level of censorship is indicative of something.
onethought 6y ago
Doesn’t seem like that at all... to this non us citizen. Feels like content platforms are struggling with US ideological values of free speech and how it can be exploited to manipulate people... and what is their part to play where no action is action as well. I don’t for a second think there is any significant voter fraud... cause that’d just be so hard to orchestrate and impossible to hide the evidence of.
cm2187 6y ago
Particularly given that it is not like if we had not spent 4 years hearing continuously that the previous election was stolen, with the blessing of those same big tech companies. But as someone who is naturally hostile to monopolies and social media, I think this massive over-reach is a good thing. It might buy those companies some time with the current administration, but the republicans will come back to power sooner or later, and then there will be no debate over whether big tech will need to be regulated and its power cut back. It doesn't need to be through anti-trust. Banks have been forced to downsize and been over-regulated after 2008 with fresh new laws and regulations.
JohnBooty 6y ago
1. The "steal" claims have been thoroughly debunked in many dozens of court cases. No evidence has been presented. 2. Many of the alleged "steals" were in Republican-controlled areas. So, Republicans stealing the election for... Democrats? 3. The results of the election closely matched much pre-election polling done by multiple private parties. Polls are an inexact science of course. The absence of major discrepancies proves nothing, but if there was major fraud we would expect to see discrepancies. 4. The debate is over. Weeks ago, "stop the steal" may have referred to the need for legal challenges. Today, that is not true. The window for legal challenge is closed. Today it is a direct reference to violent and armed insurrection. 5. Constitutional free speech in America is defined fairly clearly (you guessed it) the Constitution. The key thing to understand is the "Congress shall make no law" part. The government is not suppressing anybody's right to speech here. Facebook is not obligated to publish "stop the steal" nonsense any more than your local newspaper is obligated to publish letters from any random crazy person. 5a. In any reasonable society, even the right to free speech has limits. It does not trump (no pun intended) others' rights. Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not protected free speech because your right to yell things does not trump others' right to safety. Similarly, inciting violent sedition/insurrection is not protected free speech even at the government level. Instead of arguing about what FB should publish and not publish one should hope for (or create) a healthier and more diverse selection of social media platforms. While I agree with FB in this case, I think they are a drain on society in general and we would be better if there was more competition.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  2a. Quite a few of the people alleging "steals" were themselves reelected in those same "stolen" elections. Oddly, they're not contesting their own seats as similarly fraudulent.
  - lol2143651 6y ago
    Standing requires an injury. Moreover not all ballots contain votes for all candidates.
- galangalalgol 6y ago
GordonS 6y ago
> To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, there might have been something fishy going on in the voting process From another non-US citizen, this doesn't seem like the case at all; TBH, it sounds pretty paranoid. The sitting US president has been spreading (easily disprovable) lies about election fraud for months - Facebook and Twitter didn't stop him. They are only acting now because the US president went just a little too far (leading to a violent mob attacking Capitol Hill), and also because they have to be seen to do something, lest the government try to force regulation on them.
richrichardsson 6y ago
When are people going to stop with this nonsense belief that a private entity is required to enable any speech on their platform. Facebook is not curtailing anyone's freedom of speech; those people who wish to say things that Facebook doesn't allow are still free to do it anywhere else, just not on their platform. Freedom of speech is only protected from governmental interference in the US, why do so many people not understand this simple concept?
pelliphant 6y ago
Are you a troll? Anyway, could you vent your conspiracy bullshit somewhere else?
shlant 6y ago
> "Why suddenly all platforms are stopping the spreading of this information." Are you ignoring the 70 days of news, vote counts/recounts/certifications, court cases/lawsuits etc.? Do you think that there hasn't been a shred of substantiated hard evidence of widespread voter fraud for 70 days and then all of the sudden there was and so platforms started censoring people? Have you been paying any attention to this? or is your comment just based on a very narrow perspective of very recent events?

loceng 6y ago

You're leading into paranoia. There's been no evidence of mass voter fraud - there are systems in place, poll watchers that people from both main parties are party to overseeing the counting. All these actions from platforms is to prevent, limit, curb violence. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy. You're either for non-violence and a civil, reasoning-reasonable society - or you are living in ignorance is bliss and you don't care if there's chaos and the world burns. Also, no one's freedom of speech has been taken away. These are private platforms, they're not the public space - the internet itself is the neutral platform, likewise these people have other means to communicate. They don't get the automatic right to using the most convenient technology provided by private companies though. The military industrial complex is a whole different beast than this one currently playing out; yes, it's still a problem along with the duopoly, Andrew Yang's core policy proposals will break apart the duopoly and counter regulatory capture.

ctdonath 6y ago
There is plenty of evidence of election fraud. Refusing to address it just makes the issue worse, leading to exactly what happened.
- loceng 6y ago
  No evidence of mass fraud is what I said, and arguably the majority of fraud and interference is from Republicans - gerrymandering including literally trying to dismantle the USPS. Why did all of the judges throw out the cases brought forward to judges in different states? It's because they didn't present any evidence. I find it fascinating that it's assumed if there's fraud it's to benefit Biden, and also that if Trump won then they'd consider the election fair. Also, during recounts that did happen there were more votes for Biden that were added - which perhaps suggests there was fraud during counting in favour of Trump - however Trump's vote count went up too from what I remember, but the proportion was that Biden had more votes that were missed during the first count; I haven't looked into confirming this though.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  I don't support the Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc censorship at all. With that established, I want to point out that the comment you responded to said there was no evidence of mass voter fraud. I think it's impossible for a country the size of the USA to hold an election with literally zero cases of voter fraud. The yardstick is whether there's evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could conceivably even remotely impact the results of the election. Of that, there is none.
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    Semantics. Don’t need “mass” if targeted distortions in a few counting centers throws the outcome. Yes, consequential abnormalities in key locations were apparent.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      So provide the evidence rather than mere assertion. And, is there no way to do this without Twitter or Facebook? Have we no television news? No newspapers? No court system with judges amiable to the President’s party? It’s a farce.

loopz 6y ago

What information do you mean?

foolmeonce 6y ago

Trump has even more extremely demonstrated that the US has insufficient checks on a president. Both parties are equally upset by the threat of a President from the other party. Why would any future president not claim victory in an election he lost after this debacle? Why would any president not commit crimes to hold power and then need to keep it within his allies to prevent his prosecution? Structurally the US is dysfunctional. But whichever party thinks it has 4-8years of control will block reform.

pjc50 6y ago
I suspect the logical outcome of this is a Parliamentary system where the President requires the explicit approval of both houses. If the two houses go one way and the presidency the other, the president will be impeached and removed. The Clinton presidency was the dry run for this.
- learc83 6y ago
  Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate. It’s unlikely that every member of a party would vote for removal without a clear, major violation. So the only way your scenario works out is if the Senate has 70 or so members from the party opposing the President. A split like that is very unlikely.
loceng 6y ago
The system is working relatively well - though there can be tweaks; if Biden didn't win then we'd be in a lot more trouble. Trump in fact has allowed the swamp to be cleared as he promised, as we can see the treasonous Republican senators who allowed all of this behaviour to continue by not removing Trump - the House impeached him, then it was the Senate"s job to confirm. Trump exposed the rot, how far they're willing to go, showed us all their true colours that Trump's a wannabe tyrant and the Republican senators are happy to fall in line with that. He's also exposed the flaws in systems that allowed him and others to manipulate Americans for decades. Thankfully Biden won and I believe full out civil war can be avoided now, so long as these systems including the duopoly and mainstream media's ability to lie, to only tell one narrative; the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated as review recommended by Andrew Yang, along with his core policy proposals will adequately counter these problems.

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago

This has been exactly my contention since basically this all started. I'm not convinced there was fraud, or fraud sufficient to sway the election. However, the media and the powers that be are doing their best to convince me that there is something to it by censoring all opposing viewpoints. Like, I didn't vote for Trump, and these voter fraud people seem not very credible, but when you crack down on them with the weight of the entire establishment, I can only conclude that you're afraid of what they have to say.

pjc50 6y ago

The thing is there has been all sorts of "fishy" stuff happening in elections .. to benefit Republicans. They used "ballot security" as cover for voter intimidation, resulting in a consent decree: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent-decree-lifted-against-rncs-ballot-security-measures?t=1610451725505 https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent... (ended in 2018) The current election cases filed by the Republicans have almost all been abandoned or thrown out. > Claiming it is because of possible violence The violence already happened on the 6th. Several people are dead as a result, and the protestors got very close to the elected representatives.

im3w1l 6y ago
Youtube started removing election questioning after the safe harbor deadline in mid-December. There had not been any violence at that point.
jacquesm 6y ago
And the elephant in the room: Gerrymandering.
- onethought 6y ago
  The bigger one seems the electoral college... gerrymandering seems more dramatic in senate races and state legislatures
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > gerrymandering seems more dramatic in senate races You can't really gerrymander senate races, since they're based on [basically-] fixed state borders.
    - onethought 6y ago
      Sorry I count 2 senators regardless of population as gerrymandering in my head... but you are right it’s not. It’s still part of the stupid setup though.

CamperBob2 6y ago

NinjaSaves 6y ago
You may have noticed that The Squad & Co. has been exhorting violence for 4 years. The violent idiots on the 6th probably just assumed that's how things go now: you lose, you get to be violent now, and the news will quietly sweep it aside and call you peaceful. This is more of a comment on our broken communication and information apparatus as a species than on anything political.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Possibly. People who are stupid enough to assault the Capitol building without an actual army behind them are likely more than stupid enough to draw false equivalencies between civil disturbances prompted by documented instances of injustice and a coup attempt based on nothing but bluster and lies.
  - lol2143651 6y ago
    Or they just thought protesting politicians in official gov't buildings is far more legitimate than destroying the homes and businesses of the innocent.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, there might have been something fishy going on in the voting process. What non-US citizens tend to miss is that the distributed nature of American elections makes that extraordinarily unlikely. Elections are managed almost entirely at the state and local level in the US. For example, Georgia's win was certified and defended by a Republican Governor and Secretary of State. Their results come from the county level, of which there are over three thousand in the US, many of which are heavily Republican, and each of which is responsible for its own election setup, count, and verification. You'd have to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of election officials and volunteers to participate and cover it up.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>the distributed nature of American election >Their results come from the county level, of which there are over three thousand in the US, many of which are heavily Republican, and each of which is responsible for its own election setup, count, and verification. >You'd have to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of election officials and volunteers to participate and cover it up. Tell that to Al Gore. Our elections are so "distributed" that every presidential election in the past 50yr or so has comes down to a number of counties you can count on two hands in a number of states you can count on one hand. The election may be distributed but the results in the overwhelming majority of states is a foregone conclusion. I don't see how anyone can call our (presidential) elections distributed with a straight face. Take Georgia, the example you picked. As usual the rural areas went red, the suburbs went a red or blue shade of purple and the city went blue. At the end of the day the question was whether there was enough blue in the city to exceed the red everywhere else. And this is why there's always a big argument over whether or not a fraction of a percent of inner city voters at the margin are being disfranchised by this or that policy. Basically every state goes down in this manner, albeit that in most of them the proportion between red voters and blue voters is different enough you can be reasonably sure of the results in advance. So the presidential election always comes down to a handful of city counties that will or won't flip their states red/blue based on turnout. (See also, why using gerrymandering to carve up cities to minimize or maximize their representation is such a big problem). Our elections are "distributed" in name only.

codingprograms 6y ago

I completely agree. This level of censorship is indicative of something.

onethought 6y ago

Doesn’t seem like that at all... to this non us citizen. Feels like content platforms are struggling with US ideological values of free speech and how it can be exploited to manipulate people... and what is their part to play where no action is action as well. I don’t for a second think there is any significant voter fraud... cause that’d just be so hard to orchestrate and impossible to hide the evidence of.

cm2187 6y ago

Particularly given that it is not like if we had not spent 4 years hearing continuously that the previous election was stolen, with the blessing of those same big tech companies. But as someone who is naturally hostile to monopolies and social media, I think this massive over-reach is a good thing. It might buy those companies some time with the current administration, but the republicans will come back to power sooner or later, and then there will be no debate over whether big tech will need to be regulated and its power cut back. It doesn't need to be through anti-trust. Banks have been forced to downsize and been over-regulated after 2008 with fresh new laws and regulations.

JohnBooty 6y ago

1. The "steal" claims have been thoroughly debunked in many dozens of court cases. No evidence has been presented. 2. Many of the alleged "steals" were in Republican-controlled areas. So, Republicans stealing the election for... Democrats? 3. The results of the election closely matched much pre-election polling done by multiple private parties. Polls are an inexact science of course. The absence of major discrepancies proves nothing, but if there was major fraud we would expect to see discrepancies. 4. The debate is over. Weeks ago, "stop the steal" may have referred to the need for legal challenges. Today, that is not true. The window for legal challenge is closed. Today it is a direct reference to violent and armed insurrection. 5. Constitutional free speech in America is defined fairly clearly (you guessed it) the Constitution. The key thing to understand is the "Congress shall make no law" part. The government is not suppressing anybody's right to speech here. Facebook is not obligated to publish "stop the steal" nonsense any more than your local newspaper is obligated to publish letters from any random crazy person. 5a. In any reasonable society, even the right to free speech has limits. It does not trump (no pun intended) others' rights. Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not protected free speech because your right to yell things does not trump others' right to safety. Similarly, inciting violent sedition/insurrection is not protected free speech even at the government level. Instead of arguing about what FB should publish and not publish one should hope for (or create) a healthier and more diverse selection of social media platforms. While I agree with FB in this case, I think they are a drain on society in general and we would be better if there was more competition.

ceejayoz 6y ago
2a. Quite a few of the people alleging "steals" were themselves reelected in those same "stolen" elections. Oddly, they're not contesting their own seats as similarly fraudulent.
- lol2143651 6y ago
  Standing requires an injury. Moreover not all ballots contain votes for all candidates.
galangalalgol 6y ago

GordonS 6y ago

> To a non-us citizen and somebody who believes in free speech, this whole debacle looks like the parties behind who own our social media trying to stop in anyway the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, there might have been something fishy going on in the voting process From another non-US citizen, this doesn't seem like the case at all; TBH, it sounds pretty paranoid. The sitting US president has been spreading (easily disprovable) lies about election fraud for months - Facebook and Twitter didn't stop him. They are only acting now because the US president went just a little too far (leading to a violent mob attacking Capitol Hill), and also because they have to be seen to do something, lest the government try to force regulation on them.

richrichardsson 6y ago

When are people going to stop with this nonsense belief that a private entity is required to enable any speech on their platform. Facebook is not curtailing anyone's freedom of speech; those people who wish to say things that Facebook doesn't allow are still free to do it anywhere else, just not on their platform. Freedom of speech is only protected from governmental interference in the US, why do so many people not understand this simple concept?

pelliphant 6y ago

Are you a troll? Anyway, could you vent your conspiracy bullshit somewhere else?

shlant 6y ago

> "Why suddenly all platforms are stopping the spreading of this information." Are you ignoring the 70 days of news, vote counts/recounts/certifications, court cases/lawsuits etc.? Do you think that there hasn't been a shred of substantiated hard evidence of widespread voter fraud for 70 days and then all of the sudden there was and so platforms started censoring people? Have you been paying any attention to this? or is your comment just based on a very narrow perspective of very recent events?