3 ms·

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 Repu

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
I agree with everything except 4, anytime someone says the debate is over I almost automatically take the other side, shutting down discourse is never ok, even when keeping it open costs lives, we need to talk more about things we disagree on, not less. Otherwise we will continue to polarize. I'm also leary of stigmatising phrases like stop the steal or all lives matter even when only 1% of uses are anything but incindiary. 5 I agree with but wonder if we should change it, network news uaed to have an equal time for both candidates thing despite being private. That and what is happening with whatsapp in EU make me think some sort of legal recognition of the effective duopoly facebook and Twitter have.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  I agree with but wonder if we should change it, network news uaed to have an equal time for both candidates thing despite being private. I do miss this, at least in theory. I'm not sure how effective it would be today, as its effectiveness would depend heavily upon good-faith efforts by the various partisan networks. Suppose we forced Fox News or Newsmax to give equal time to "liberal" viewpoints. Couldn't they simply find the least appealing and most ineffective possible "liberal" and allow them to make an utter ass of themselves? The same of course could be said for CNN or MSNBC if they were forced to give equal air time to "conservatives" and they acted in bad faith. I'm also leary of stigmatising phrases like stop the steal or all lives matter even when only 1% of uses are anything but incindiary. I'm leery as well. Some other phrase from the opposite end of the spectrum could easily be next. That said, the "stop the steal" movement just staged a violent ransacking of the Capitol; lawmakers narrowly escaped safely from armed mobs. It is the laziest and most sociopathic possible fantasy to shrug our shoulders and treat the planning of such events as equal to other forms of speech. Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is always weighed against other rights. If somebody made credible death threats against you on Facebook, would you be okay with that? What about somebody making those threats on a megaphone, outside your home? How about a mob of people making them outside your home? Where would your love for free speech be then? I absolutely understand the attraction and utter simplicity of "free speech, always, in all cases, trumping everything else, always" but it has never been and will never be that simple. It is an ideal to strive for. It is not our only ideal.

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

I agree with everything except 4, anytime someone says the debate is over I almost automatically take the other side, shutting down discourse is never ok, even when keeping it open costs lives, we need to talk more about things we disagree on, not less. Otherwise we will continue to polarize. I'm also leary of stigmatising phrases like stop the steal or all lives matter even when only 1% of uses are anything but incindiary. 5 I agree with but wonder if we should change it, network news uaed to have an equal time for both candidates thing despite being private. That and what is happening with whatsapp in EU make me think some sort of legal recognition of the effective duopoly facebook and Twitter have.

JohnBooty 6y ago
I agree with but wonder if we should change it, network news uaed to have an equal time for both candidates thing despite being private. I do miss this, at least in theory. I'm not sure how effective it would be today, as its effectiveness would depend heavily upon good-faith efforts by the various partisan networks. Suppose we forced Fox News or Newsmax to give equal time to "liberal" viewpoints. Couldn't they simply find the least appealing and most ineffective possible "liberal" and allow them to make an utter ass of themselves? The same of course could be said for CNN or MSNBC if they were forced to give equal air time to "conservatives" and they acted in bad faith. I'm also leary of stigmatising phrases like stop the steal or all lives matter even when only 1% of uses are anything but incindiary. I'm leery as well. Some other phrase from the opposite end of the spectrum could easily be next. That said, the "stop the steal" movement just staged a violent ransacking of the Capitol; lawmakers narrowly escaped safely from armed mobs. It is the laziest and most sociopathic possible fantasy to shrug our shoulders and treat the planning of such events as equal to other forms of speech. Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is always weighed against other rights. If somebody made credible death threats against you on Facebook, would you be okay with that? What about somebody making those threats on a megaphone, outside your home? How about a mob of people making them outside your home? Where would your love for free speech be then? I absolutely understand the attraction and utter simplicity of "free speech, always, in all cases, trumping everything else, always" but it has never been and will never be that simple. It is an ideal to strive for. It is not our only ideal.