8 ms·

Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of

by cm2187 6y ago

Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. It’s a lot of precedents. And there is nothing that suggests the temperature will cool down in the short term. I agree that big tech companies may do a lot more collateral damage but in my opinion they also already painted themselves with a bull eye on their back. Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash.

Grustaf 6y ago
I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get back into power in anything like their current form. We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.
- cm2187 6y ago
  True but I still think there is a limit to how much one can influence a population’s opinion. My favorite example is Poland which after 60 years of communism, is the most conservative catholic country in Europe. Elections are often won at the margin (and this one was particularly tight in the key states), and therefore a marginal influence may be enough to tip the outcome. But I think it will do nothing to a broad base movement.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    Ah but a modern welfare state combined with the power of all the social networks, and much of the internet infrastructure, that combo can exert much more power than the soviet communists ever could.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center. Nope. Huge swaths of the democratic party are opposed to these SV companies because they see Twitter, FB, etc, as having played a huge part in Trump gaining the influence he did and the conspiracy nutjobs evangelizing their craziness as well. I expect pushes for regulation, just a different sort than Trump would've pushed for. Here we have people dying because a President who was afraid of losing spent months preemptively setting up a fraud excuse. An excuse that was enabled and amplified by social media platforms that also helped people spread conspiracies about the supposed non-existence of a global pandemic, and thus the need for different behaviors. Even if you end up saying Trump himself shouldn't have been banned, you have a huge echo chamber problem that has now passed the point where we can dismiss it with stuff like "they just need to feel heard." Lots of people listened, and it led to lots of violence, and is the way we're currently (not) regulating social media sufficient? All of these nutjob theories have gotten MORE prevalent in the past 4 years DESPITE their candidate winning the 2016 election and DESPITE their candidate completely failing to expose any national pedophile conspiracy or any of the other nonsense they spout... The ultimate influence of the big social media platforms has been anything but left-leaning.
paganel 6y ago
> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it looks like the party is de facto split in two. Even though today's vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can't explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  Rep Swalwell (member of intelligence and judiciary committees) said on msnbc today that several republicans lawmakers told him they would vote no because they feared for their and their family’s safety. The Republican Party is afraid that Trump’s base will murder republicans who turn against Trump.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.
  - jfim 6y ago
    > I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Impeachment may prevent him from running again: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-can-lawmakers-use-impeachment-to-bar-trump-from-holding-office-again-idUSKBN29H1A8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-exp...
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension." I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit impeachable offenses with impunity as long as they're close to the finish line. Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.
xpe 6y ago
> Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. You packed a lot into this one sentence. Please share your evidence.
- NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
  Straight from the source itself: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-post-from-posting/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos...
  - xpe 6y ago
    The NY Post's credibility is in question on this matter, specifically. (Also, more generally.) Can you please point to another credible source?
    - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
      That wasn’t what was in question, it was whether or not Twitter censored them, which they did. See the sibling comment to your post here for additional info from Twitter even on the topic. Even though they reversed the censorship, they _did_ do it.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    And Twitter corrected their action: * https://twitter.com/jack/status/1317081843443912706 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1317081843443912706 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-block-ny-post-hunter-biden-article.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-blo...
    - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
      That doesn’t make what they did okay — if anything it shows exactly how much power and influence they wielded in suppressing a news story at a critical point in informing people during an election cycle. That cannot be understated.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by cm2187 6y ago

Grustaf 6y ago

I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get back into power in anything like their current form. We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.

cm2187 6y ago
True but I still think there is a limit to how much one can influence a population’s opinion. My favorite example is Poland which after 60 years of communism, is the most conservative catholic country in Europe. Elections are often won at the margin (and this one was particularly tight in the key states), and therefore a marginal influence may be enough to tip the outcome. But I think it will do nothing to a broad base movement.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Ah but a modern welfare state combined with the power of all the social networks, and much of the internet infrastructure, that combo can exert much more power than the soviet communists ever could.
majormajor 6y ago
> We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center. Nope. Huge swaths of the democratic party are opposed to these SV companies because they see Twitter, FB, etc, as having played a huge part in Trump gaining the influence he did and the conspiracy nutjobs evangelizing their craziness as well. I expect pushes for regulation, just a different sort than Trump would've pushed for. Here we have people dying because a President who was afraid of losing spent months preemptively setting up a fraud excuse. An excuse that was enabled and amplified by social media platforms that also helped people spread conspiracies about the supposed non-existence of a global pandemic, and thus the need for different behaviors. Even if you end up saying Trump himself shouldn't have been banned, you have a huge echo chamber problem that has now passed the point where we can dismiss it with stuff like "they just need to feel heard." Lots of people listened, and it led to lots of violence, and is the way we're currently (not) regulating social media sufficient? All of these nutjob theories have gotten MORE prevalent in the past 4 years DESPITE their candidate winning the 2016 election and DESPITE their candidate completely failing to expose any national pedophile conspiracy or any of the other nonsense they spout... The ultimate influence of the big social media platforms has been anything but left-leaning.

paganel 6y ago

> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it looks like the party is de facto split in two. Even though today's vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can't explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment.

ABeeSea 6y ago
Rep Swalwell (member of intelligence and judiciary committees) said on msnbc today that several republicans lawmakers told him they would vote no because they feared for their and their family’s safety. The Republican Party is afraid that Trump’s base will murder republicans who turn against Trump.
cm2187 6y ago
I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.
- jfim 6y ago
  > I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Impeachment may prevent him from running again: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-can-lawmakers-use-impeachment-to-bar-trump-from-holding-office-again-idUSKBN29H1A8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-exp...
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension." I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit impeachable offenses with impunity as long as they're close to the finish line. Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.

xpe 6y ago

> Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. You packed a lot into this one sentence. Please share your evidence.

NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
Straight from the source itself: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-post-from-posting/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos...
- xpe 6y ago
  The NY Post's credibility is in question on this matter, specifically. (Also, more generally.) Can you please point to another credible source?
  - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
    That wasn’t what was in question, it was whether or not Twitter censored them, which they did. See the sibling comment to your post here for additional info from Twitter even on the topic. Even though they reversed the censorship, they _did_ do it.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  And Twitter corrected their action: * https://twitter.com/jack/status/1317081843443912706 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1317081843443912706 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-block-ny-post-hunter-biden-article.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-blo...
  - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
    That doesn’t make what they did okay — if anything it shows exactly how much power and influence they wielded in suppressing a news story at a critical point in informing people during an election cycle. That cannot be understated.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]