12 ms·

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered t

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

eggsmediumrare 5y ago
No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Those actual lies are the right-wing position now. If you attack lies, right-wingers will say you are attacking them.
  - throwitaway1235 5y ago
    You call opinions you disagree with lies.
    - pault 5y ago
      Incidents of voter fraud, and side effects from vaccines, etc are quantifiable, therefore not subject to opinion. Interpretation yes, but interpretation must be supported by evidence.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.
      - JKCalhoun 5y ago
        I see you point. But using "right-wingers" is a tell of sorts. It makes you appear dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. But otherwise I agree: there is such a thing as truth and there are out and out lies. I hope that my views are based on truths but I recognize that there are areas that while true are nuanced enough that someone else can come to a different conclusion than me. For this reason I don't claim that everyone with a different view is backing their view with lies. Sometimes though, some of them are.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        I am dismissive. Because the opposing viewpoint is believing literal lies. Of course I will dismiss that. Everyone should.
        lovemenot 5y ago
        Labels polarise. Criticise the behaviours while allowing the perpetrator wiggle room.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        I don't think it's my labels that are polarising anyone. If you believe this nonsense, you are fully polarised already. I didn't do that. "Leftists" didn't do that.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Yeah. Damn your grandfathers, for all that polarising they indulged in, 1941-45. If only they'd allowed a little wiggle room!
      - throwitaway1235 5y ago
        Calling the vandalism that took place on 1/6 at the capital an insurrection, is a grotesque lie. Do me a favor. Call it an insurrection so I can call you a liar.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Well, they're the position of the most vocal and nutty segment of the right wing. Trying to paint the entire right with it is dishonest (whether accidentally or deliberately). I will admit that the nutty ones get all the media attention at the moment. (You can decide whether or not you believe that's the media trying to paint the entire right that way...)
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      They're not only getting all the media attention at the moment but they are holding all the power in the GOP at the moment. Especially in places like Florida.
- war1025 5y ago
  > The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice. Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it is entirely natural for people to be suspicious. Those people then asked for audits and were told to go to hell. If you want to undermine trust in the election system, that is exactly how to accomplish it. None of this is "you aren't allowed to lie" it's "You aren't allowed to ask questions" [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/us/2020/michigan-wisconsin.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/us/2020/michigan-w...
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Exactly this. Again, I don't believe there was widespread fraud but people who refuse to discuss what happened and refuse inspections sure aren't helping us becomong more confident.
    - seppin 5y ago
      > I don't believe there was widespread fraud They people that do are basing it on no evidence and lies. There aren't two sides to a lie, and it doesn't deserve equal time to the truth.
  - bigtex1988 5y ago
    Last I checked, pregnancy isn't contagious. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Who was told to "go to hell"? There were plenty of recounts in all of the close states. Even the recent farcical commission checking fraud in Arizona didn't find anything. As to the "spike" in that picture, a simple Google search of "Michigan spike voting" produces plenty of resources showing how the "spike" was not fraud. And if you're so worried about the spike in Biden votes later in the process, why are you not also worried about the spike in Trump votes at Nov 3 21:00 (on the graph on the right)? You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  You mean the recent very secure elections where 120 000 test votes snuck in? The very secure elections that are so secure in some counties that nobody is allowed to verify? I don't think there was substantial election fraud but I must say America keeps trying to convince me otherwise. Couple this with media who is unable or unwilling to tell us what is done to prevent fraud (the only thing I have actually learned was from someone here on HN who served at a voting center and had a very good explanation). For the record: I don't think there was election fraud but I do think that if major media and tech companies had pushed Trump the way they pushed Biden there had been well deserved outcry. Personally I like Biden more than Trump but that doesn't mean the election wasn't ugly.
  - fidesomnes 5y ago
    The very secure elections that 6 states had to stop counting votes for, at nearly the same time, and leave everyone wondering what was happening for weeks until they got the votes they wanted.
  - bigtex1988 5y ago
    Are you talking about the same "recent very secure elections" where the processes in place worked as intended? Those test votes were found and were taken out, specifically because there are processes in place to check and double-check and triple-check the count. America does not keep trying to convince you that there is "substantial election fraud". It is clearly one political party and their friends at Fox News that are trying to convince you of this. Reality is the antidote to their poison.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  But that is exactly what happens. 5 billionaires control the majority of online social media content.
- splitstud 5y ago
  It's good that we're only talking about censoring things you don't agree with.
- AuryGlenz 5y ago
  This is a weird argument to make when the lab leak “conspiracy” was censored the same way. Also, there was election fraud. There always is. Was it enough to turn the election? Who knows. To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. The only way we can have trust in our election process is if we can ask questions.
  - stouset 5y ago
    > To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss election fraud. The argument—which I'm sure you are actually aware—is that there needs to be some level of credibility to the idea that a) fraud occurred, and b) that it happened in meaningful quantities before we spend significant time, cost, and effort in investigating claims. Simply having lost is not a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud. Finding one or two isolated cases in elections with margins of thousands or more votes is not a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud. Further, fraud cannot simply be a claim that is made and then perpetually reinvestigated by decreasingly-reputable third parties until you are able to invalidate an election whose outcome you disagree with.
    - war1025 5y ago
      > This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. I think that's currently how the game is played. You can try to be better than that, but then the other side wins because they are still happy to play dirty.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship. Whatever gatekeeping rules you agree or don't with shouldn't matter. The gatekeeping is the problem. Being afraid of ideas and shutting down anyone who doesn't speak about approved topics is the issue not whether your gatekeeping rules have been met.
      - 5y ago
- throwitaway1235 5y ago
  So liberals get to pick the political arguments humans get to talk about? You may support that type of social conversation, but don't call it democracy, because it's not.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  This is just saying "as long as I get to define what is reasonable, we can have a reasonable debate about anything"
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the domain of cultural issues... Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse, just stuff around the margins which is not threatening to corporate power (identity politics, maybe some health care reform). I remain flabbergasted by the increasing number of people who can somehow in the same breath complain about "radical socialists" and "cultural marxists" while at the same time somehow equating those people with "corporate elites" and "silicon valley" -- the two are the enemy of the other. EDIT: as a person with actual radical socialist politics, I can assure you that both Facebook and the NYT want nothing to do with my views.
- walkedaway 5y ago
  > Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse We have multiple socialists elected to US Congress.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    If you want to call them that, sure.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    Democratic socialism isn't anywhere near the same as the Cuba/Venezuela/USSR type of socialism. Are any politicians of the latter stripe currently in Congress? Like I get that there's a popular meme that taxes and government services are "socialism". But that's a wildly inaccurate boogeyman conjured up by people who really, really don't want to pay taxes. (No one wants to pay taxes, but most of us accept they're the cost of having a society) If taxes that fund government services are "socialist" then having a police force is "socialist" too. Do you agree with that? It sounds ridiculous to me but that's where that logic leads.
  - CRConrad 5y ago

eggsmediumrare 5y ago

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

user-the-name 5y ago
Those actual lies are the right-wing position now. If you attack lies, right-wingers will say you are attacking them.
- throwitaway1235 5y ago
  You call opinions you disagree with lies.
  - pault 5y ago
    Incidents of voter fraud, and side effects from vaccines, etc are quantifiable, therefore not subject to opinion. Interpretation yes, but interpretation must be supported by evidence.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      I see you point. But using "right-wingers" is a tell of sorts. It makes you appear dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. But otherwise I agree: there is such a thing as truth and there are out and out lies. I hope that my views are based on truths but I recognize that there are areas that while true are nuanced enough that someone else can come to a different conclusion than me. For this reason I don't claim that everyone with a different view is backing their view with lies. Sometimes though, some of them are.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        I am dismissive. Because the opposing viewpoint is believing literal lies. Of course I will dismiss that. Everyone should.
        lovemenot 5y ago
        Labels polarise. Criticise the behaviours while allowing the perpetrator wiggle room.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        I don't think it's my labels that are polarising anyone. If you believe this nonsense, you are fully polarised already. I didn't do that. "Leftists" didn't do that.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Yeah. Damn your grandfathers, for all that polarising they indulged in, 1941-45. If only they'd allowed a little wiggle room!
    - throwitaway1235 5y ago
      Calling the vandalism that took place on 1/6 at the capital an insurrection, is a grotesque lie. Do me a favor. Call it an insurrection so I can call you a liar.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Well, they're the position of the most vocal and nutty segment of the right wing. Trying to paint the entire right with it is dishonest (whether accidentally or deliberately). I will admit that the nutty ones get all the media attention at the moment. (You can decide whether or not you believe that's the media trying to paint the entire right that way...)
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    They're not only getting all the media attention at the moment but they are holding all the power in the GOP at the moment. Especially in places like Florida.
war1025 5y ago
> The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice. Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it is entirely natural for people to be suspicious. Those people then asked for audits and were told to go to hell. If you want to undermine trust in the election system, that is exactly how to accomplish it. None of this is "you aren't allowed to lie" it's "You aren't allowed to ask questions" [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/us/2020/michigan-wisconsin.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/us/2020/michigan-w...
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Exactly this. Again, I don't believe there was widespread fraud but people who refuse to discuss what happened and refuse inspections sure aren't helping us becomong more confident.
  - seppin 5y ago
    > I don't believe there was widespread fraud They people that do are basing it on no evidence and lies. There aren't two sides to a lie, and it doesn't deserve equal time to the truth.
- bigtex1988 5y ago
  Last I checked, pregnancy isn't contagious. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Who was told to "go to hell"? There were plenty of recounts in all of the close states. Even the recent farcical commission checking fraud in Arizona didn't find anything. As to the "spike" in that picture, a simple Google search of "Michigan spike voting" produces plenty of resources showing how the "spike" was not fraud. And if you're so worried about the spike in Biden votes later in the process, why are you not also worried about the spike in Trump votes at Nov 3 21:00 (on the graph on the right)? You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith.
skinkestek 5y ago
You mean the recent very secure elections where 120 000 test votes snuck in? The very secure elections that are so secure in some counties that nobody is allowed to verify? I don't think there was substantial election fraud but I must say America keeps trying to convince me otherwise. Couple this with media who is unable or unwilling to tell us what is done to prevent fraud (the only thing I have actually learned was from someone here on HN who served at a voting center and had a very good explanation). For the record: I don't think there was election fraud but I do think that if major media and tech companies had pushed Trump the way they pushed Biden there had been well deserved outcry. Personally I like Biden more than Trump but that doesn't mean the election wasn't ugly.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  The very secure elections that 6 states had to stop counting votes for, at nearly the same time, and leave everyone wondering what was happening for weeks until they got the votes they wanted.
- bigtex1988 5y ago
  Are you talking about the same "recent very secure elections" where the processes in place worked as intended? Those test votes were found and were taken out, specifically because there are processes in place to check and double-check and triple-check the count. America does not keep trying to convince you that there is "substantial election fraud". It is clearly one political party and their friends at Fox News that are trying to convince you of this. Reality is the antidote to their poison.
fidesomnes 5y ago
But that is exactly what happens. 5 billionaires control the majority of online social media content.
splitstud 5y ago
It's good that we're only talking about censoring things you don't agree with.
AuryGlenz 5y ago
This is a weird argument to make when the lab leak “conspiracy” was censored the same way. Also, there was election fraud. There always is. Was it enough to turn the election? Who knows. To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. The only way we can have trust in our election process is if we can ask questions.
- stouset 5y ago
  > To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss election fraud. The argument—which I'm sure you are actually aware—is that there needs to be some level of credibility to the idea that a) fraud occurred, and b) that it happened in meaningful quantities before we spend significant time, cost, and effort in investigating claims. Simply having lost is not a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud. Finding one or two isolated cases in elections with margins of thousands or more votes is not a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud. Further, fraud cannot simply be a claim that is made and then perpetually reinvestigated by decreasingly-reputable third parties until you are able to invalidate an election whose outcome you disagree with.
  - war1025 5y ago
    > This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. I think that's currently how the game is played. You can try to be better than that, but then the other side wins because they are still happy to play dirty.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship. Whatever gatekeeping rules you agree or don't with shouldn't matter. The gatekeeping is the problem. Being afraid of ideas and shutting down anyone who doesn't speak about approved topics is the issue not whether your gatekeeping rules have been met.
    - 5y ago
throwitaway1235 5y ago
So liberals get to pick the political arguments humans get to talk about? You may support that type of social conversation, but don't call it democracy, because it's not.
throwawayboise 5y ago
This is just saying "as long as I get to define what is reasonable, we can have a reasonable debate about anything"

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the domain of cultural issues... Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse, just stuff around the margins which is not threatening to corporate power (identity politics, maybe some health care reform). I remain flabbergasted by the increasing number of people who can somehow in the same breath complain about "radical socialists" and "cultural marxists" while at the same time somehow equating those people with "corporate elites" and "silicon valley" -- the two are the enemy of the other. EDIT: as a person with actual radical socialist politics, I can assure you that both Facebook and the NYT want nothing to do with my views.

walkedaway 5y ago
> Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse We have multiple socialists elected to US Congress.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  If you want to call them that, sure.
- triceratops 5y ago
  Democratic socialism isn't anywhere near the same as the Cuba/Venezuela/USSR type of socialism. Are any politicians of the latter stripe currently in Congress? Like I get that there's a popular meme that taxes and government services are "socialism". But that's a wildly inaccurate boogeyman conjured up by people who really, really don't want to pay taxes. (No one wants to pay taxes, but most of us accept they're the cost of having a society) If taxes that fund government services are "socialist" then having a police force is "socialist" too. Do you agree with that? It sounds ridiculous to me but that's where that logic leads.
- CRConrad 5y ago