5 ms·

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 pa

by 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.
      - ctdonath 6y ago
        A major vote counting center shut down mid evening. They never shut down until completion - except this time. Once observers were gone, count resumed. Unusual activity occurred, recorded by surveillance cameras. During this period, a freak consequential spike in tally occurred - for one candidate. If that doesn’t get at least your curiosity, no point in continuing.
        germinalphrase 6y ago
        Sure, I’m curious; however, you are merely making an assertion that 1) these events happened the way you’re presenting them, 2) there is no legitimate reason for the events to have happened as you’re presenting them, 3) this constitutes a conspiracy to commit election fraud, and 4) this indicates the election was wrongly decided.
- onethought 6y ago
  There really isn’t. It was addressed in every state, court, media channel. It’s very much the realm of crazy conspiracy theory.
  - vimy 6y ago
    I keep hearing the court claim but most of the court cases were dismissed without looking at the evidence. [1] You have to wonder why the democrats, Biden in particular, never simply said. “We don’t think there was fraud but to ensure faith in fair elections and democracy we fully support a full investigation / audit. We have the utmost confidence in the outcome of this investigation / audit.” Instead they mocked and opposed every attempt to look deeper in the alleged fraud. Is it really so weird then that people start to wonder why there is so much resistance to the idea of fraud after 4 years of democrats and media claiming Russia stole the election? [1]https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/stats/ https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/stats/
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      That's exactly right. "Dozens of court cases found no evidence" is a Reddit fake fact. In reality the evidence wasn't examined in courts. Nor in the Senate. The riot and breach on the 6'th made sure of that.
      - Munksgaard 6y ago
        As far as I've understood, judges can (perhaps are even expected to) throw out cases that have no real evidence behind them. I could accuse you of stealing my car and sue you, but unless I have some basic proof, the judge doesn't have to take my case seriously.
        Volundr 6y ago
        Exactly this. One of the common claims is that the courts dismissed on technicalities and "refused to look at the evidence", when in actually many of the cases where dismissed specifically because the "evidence" wasn't compelling. Hence the Georgia judge chewing out Guiliani over their flawed affidavit collection for example.
moduspol 6y ago
> 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. I guess these platforms were on "team: chaos and the world burns" throughout the BLM riots, and were on "team: conspiracy theories" throughout the 2+ years of "Russian collusion" coverage. And if you can't see parallels to this same statement you're making and echos throughout history when someone decides what's OK and not OK to say, I'm not sure what to tell you. Literally every authoritarian could make the case that silencing their opponents is worth it for the greater good. > 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. People said this when it was just Facebook / Twitter. Then it's the App Stores on mobile devices, and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors. That's fine--just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content, because that's what's happening next.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  ISPs are already blocking content, notably Facebook and Twitter. This is only possible because of the lack of net neutrality rules via the FCC. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-01-11/idaho-company-to-block-facebook-and-twitter-for-censorship https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-... And payment processors? That has been a concern for over a quarter of a century. Plan accordingly.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors Payment processors have always been heavily restrictive about what they allow. There have been articles talking about the hoops that OnlyFans has to jump through, for instance, because Stripe doesn't like pornography. > just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content Or search engines—like scihub and thepiratebay have had to deal with. So we're already doing all of thee steps. In the end, it comes down to the same thing, though: what content should be blocked?

by loceng 6y ago

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.
    - ctdonath 6y ago
      A major vote counting center shut down mid evening. They never shut down until completion - except this time. Once observers were gone, count resumed. Unusual activity occurred, recorded by surveillance cameras. During this period, a freak consequential spike in tally occurred - for one candidate. If that doesn’t get at least your curiosity, no point in continuing.
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
        Sure, I’m curious; however, you are merely making an assertion that 1) these events happened the way you’re presenting them, 2) there is no legitimate reason for the events to have happened as you’re presenting them, 3) this constitutes a conspiracy to commit election fraud, and 4) this indicates the election was wrongly decided.
onethought 6y ago
There really isn’t. It was addressed in every state, court, media channel. It’s very much the realm of crazy conspiracy theory.
- vimy 6y ago
  I keep hearing the court claim but most of the court cases were dismissed without looking at the evidence. [1] You have to wonder why the democrats, Biden in particular, never simply said. “We don’t think there was fraud but to ensure faith in fair elections and democracy we fully support a full investigation / audit. We have the utmost confidence in the outcome of this investigation / audit.” Instead they mocked and opposed every attempt to look deeper in the alleged fraud. Is it really so weird then that people start to wonder why there is so much resistance to the idea of fraud after 4 years of democrats and media claiming Russia stole the election? [1]https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/stats/ https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/stats/
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    That's exactly right. "Dozens of court cases found no evidence" is a Reddit fake fact. In reality the evidence wasn't examined in courts. Nor in the Senate. The riot and breach on the 6'th made sure of that.
    - Munksgaard 6y ago
      As far as I've understood, judges can (perhaps are even expected to) throw out cases that have no real evidence behind them. I could accuse you of stealing my car and sue you, but unless I have some basic proof, the judge doesn't have to take my case seriously.
      - Volundr 6y ago
        Exactly this. One of the common claims is that the courts dismissed on technicalities and "refused to look at the evidence", when in actually many of the cases where dismissed specifically because the "evidence" wasn't compelling. Hence the Georgia judge chewing out Guiliani over their flawed affidavit collection for example.

moduspol 6y ago

> 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. I guess these platforms were on "team: chaos and the world burns" throughout the BLM riots, and were on "team: conspiracy theories" throughout the 2+ years of "Russian collusion" coverage. And if you can't see parallels to this same statement you're making and echos throughout history when someone decides what's OK and not OK to say, I'm not sure what to tell you. Literally every authoritarian could make the case that silencing their opponents is worth it for the greater good. > 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. People said this when it was just Facebook / Twitter. Then it's the App Stores on mobile devices, and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors. That's fine--just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content, because that's what's happening next.

daniellarusso 6y ago
ISPs are already blocking content, notably Facebook and Twitter. This is only possible because of the lack of net neutrality rules via the FCC. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-01-11/idaho-company-to-block-facebook-and-twitter-for-censorship https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-... And payment processors? That has been a concern for over a quarter of a century. Plan accordingly.
mcphage 6y ago
> and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors Payment processors have always been heavily restrictive about what they allow. There have been articles talking about the hoops that OnlyFans has to jump through, for instance, because Stripe doesn't like pornography. > just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content Or search engines—like scihub and thepiratebay have had to deal with. So we're already doing all of thee steps. In the end, it comes down to the same thing, though: what content should be blocked?