5 ms·

Something similar happened in the 1988 President Election in Mexico which is widely considered to have been stolen. There was a very memeable phrase, “se cayó e

Something similar happened in the 1988 President Election in Mexico which is widely considered to have been stolen. There was a very memeable phrase, “se cayó el sistema” which was used to describe how the computing system to count votes was glitching out or failing.

trhway 9mo ago
[flagged]
- jamwil 9mo ago
  Most of which had, in fact, no basis in truth. So no that’s nothing like the Mexican election.
  - trhway 9mo ago
    So censoring falsehoods is good, and censoring truth is bad, and you're the one who decides which is which, and you like such censorship working your way. And when censorship you'd just liked so much starts to be used against you, you start to whine. Millenia old story of a deal with devil. And by the way the covid "fact checking" wasn't based on "truth", it was at political request of White House as Zuck later said, and he did later called the FB fact checking a censorship when disbanding it.
    - jamwil 9mo ago
      On matters of science the scientists decide which is which.
      - trhway 9mo ago
        and you are the one to decide that this science we should ignore, and instead we declare as the truth the lies that these lying through their teeth bastards are telling. You do like the "gold standard of science", RFK Junior and Trump edition, don't you? The same censorship as you like. Btw, how many top world infectious diseases scientists were among FB “fact checkers”?
      - like_any_other 9mo ago
        Interesting that you only state the palatable part, and omit the part where we empower those scientists [1] to censor the digital public square. [1] The government decides which scientists specifically.
      - southerntofu 9mo ago
        Disclaimer: i'm far from an anti-vaxxer and i have a scientific background (though not in biology). It's often hard to establish scientific consensus. When it's not hard, it can take a long time. Cases such as climate change are as easy as it gets: models are always a flawed approximation for reality, but denying climate change on a scientific basis is almost impossible nowadays because we have too much data and too many converging studies. About a century ago, the "scientific" consensus in the western world was that there were different human races with very different characteristics, and phrenology was considered a science. The question of who establishes the ground truth, and who checks the checkers still stands. Science advances by asking sometimes inconvenient, sometimes outright weird questions. And sometimes the answers provided are plain wrong (but not for obvious reasons or malice), which is why reproducibility is so important. I don't think any entity should have the power to prevent people from questioning the status quo. Especially since censorship feeds into the mindset of the conspiracy theorists and their real truth that "THEY" don't want you to see.
        jamwil 9mo ago
        There’s a difference between questioning the status quo and spreading obvious misinformation. Did the vaccine save lives? Yes. Did misinformation about the vaccine cost lives? Yes it did.
        southerntofu 9mo ago
        For sure, in retrospect. At the time, Pfizer representatives in front of the EU parliament would not testify that their vaccines actually worked. And there are laws to requisition supplies and strip medical patents as public health measures. The fact that so much money was given to private corporations, in secret deals outside any legal proceedings, on unproven products, all while censoring any critics, really gave the conspiracy theorists water for their mill. I believe they would have had a much harder time spreading their misinformation, if they couldn't have the street cred of having "the system" against them. That is, if we had the voice of doctors vs random loonies, instead of our respective corrupt governments vs anyone they're trying to censor.
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        On all matters reality decides which is which. None of us have a psychic link to God (anyone who thinks he does, does not, and should be institutionalised), but there are many good heuristics for what is true, and we do not have to abandon the concept of truth.
        jamwil 9mo ago
        I think we agree but those heuristics… That is the scientific method. That’s all we got.
        danudey 9mo ago
        99% of climate scientists: human-triggered climate change is real 1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument. Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails! We're doomed.
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        One of many, and one of the best. Unless you performed the scientific method yourself or closely watched someone perform it, it's not available to you and you have to use another. A truthful-seeming report of someone else performing it is pretty far up the ladder, until the enemies learn to write false experiment reports indistinguishable from real ones. Not all fields of study are amenable to the scientific method, and lesser scientific methods are the best possible. We can't duplicate earth and flood one with CO2. We have to reach farther down the heuristic ladder, like studying two glass bottles, one filled with CO2. This can be extrapolated to calculate what a planet filled with CO2 would do, but the maths required is much less accessible.
        fsckboy 9mo ago
        if a man's career and income depends on the science coming out a certain way, you can be sure that's how the science will come out. "scientific method" is not a magic shield
    - danudey 9mo ago
      Zuck is opposed to any sort of regulation of misinformation and lies because that sort of content drives engagement and that's what makes him money. If people on social media weren't allowed to post outright falsehoods then the entire right-wing rage machine would collapse in on itself and social media companies' KPIs would tank.
- Gud 9mo ago
  Not sure why this is getting down voted. I remember how masks were proclaimed to be ineffective. I remember how masks were suddenly effective, but only available for medical personnel. Then when masks were available for everyone, they became mandated.

trhway 9mo ago

[flagged]

jamwil 9mo ago
Most of which had, in fact, no basis in truth. So no that’s nothing like the Mexican election.
- trhway 9mo ago
  So censoring falsehoods is good, and censoring truth is bad, and you're the one who decides which is which, and you like such censorship working your way. And when censorship you'd just liked so much starts to be used against you, you start to whine. Millenia old story of a deal with devil. And by the way the covid "fact checking" wasn't based on "truth", it was at political request of White House as Zuck later said, and he did later called the FB fact checking a censorship when disbanding it.
  - jamwil 9mo ago
    On matters of science the scientists decide which is which.
    - trhway 9mo ago
      and you are the one to decide that this science we should ignore, and instead we declare as the truth the lies that these lying through their teeth bastards are telling. You do like the "gold standard of science", RFK Junior and Trump edition, don't you? The same censorship as you like. Btw, how many top world infectious diseases scientists were among FB “fact checkers”?
    - like_any_other 9mo ago
      Interesting that you only state the palatable part, and omit the part where we empower those scientists [1] to censor the digital public square. [1] The government decides which scientists specifically.
    - southerntofu 9mo ago
      Disclaimer: i'm far from an anti-vaxxer and i have a scientific background (though not in biology). It's often hard to establish scientific consensus. When it's not hard, it can take a long time. Cases such as climate change are as easy as it gets: models are always a flawed approximation for reality, but denying climate change on a scientific basis is almost impossible nowadays because we have too much data and too many converging studies. About a century ago, the "scientific" consensus in the western world was that there were different human races with very different characteristics, and phrenology was considered a science. The question of who establishes the ground truth, and who checks the checkers still stands. Science advances by asking sometimes inconvenient, sometimes outright weird questions. And sometimes the answers provided are plain wrong (but not for obvious reasons or malice), which is why reproducibility is so important. I don't think any entity should have the power to prevent people from questioning the status quo. Especially since censorship feeds into the mindset of the conspiracy theorists and their real truth that "THEY" don't want you to see.
      - jamwil 9mo ago
        There’s a difference between questioning the status quo and spreading obvious misinformation. Did the vaccine save lives? Yes. Did misinformation about the vaccine cost lives? Yes it did.
        southerntofu 9mo ago
        For sure, in retrospect. At the time, Pfizer representatives in front of the EU parliament would not testify that their vaccines actually worked. And there are laws to requisition supplies and strip medical patents as public health measures. The fact that so much money was given to private corporations, in secret deals outside any legal proceedings, on unproven products, all while censoring any critics, really gave the conspiracy theorists water for their mill. I believe they would have had a much harder time spreading their misinformation, if they couldn't have the street cred of having "the system" against them. That is, if we had the voice of doctors vs random loonies, instead of our respective corrupt governments vs anyone they're trying to censor.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      On all matters reality decides which is which. None of us have a psychic link to God (anyone who thinks he does, does not, and should be institutionalised), but there are many good heuristics for what is true, and we do not have to abandon the concept of truth.
      - jamwil 9mo ago
        I think we agree but those heuristics… That is the scientific method. That’s all we got.
        danudey 9mo ago
        99% of climate scientists: human-triggered climate change is real 1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument. Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails! We're doomed.
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        One of many, and one of the best. Unless you performed the scientific method yourself or closely watched someone perform it, it's not available to you and you have to use another. A truthful-seeming report of someone else performing it is pretty far up the ladder, until the enemies learn to write false experiment reports indistinguishable from real ones. Not all fields of study are amenable to the scientific method, and lesser scientific methods are the best possible. We can't duplicate earth and flood one with CO2. We have to reach farther down the heuristic ladder, like studying two glass bottles, one filled with CO2. This can be extrapolated to calculate what a planet filled with CO2 would do, but the maths required is much less accessible.
        fsckboy 9mo ago
        if a man's career and income depends on the science coming out a certain way, you can be sure that's how the science will come out. "scientific method" is not a magic shield
  - danudey 9mo ago
    Zuck is opposed to any sort of regulation of misinformation and lies because that sort of content drives engagement and that's what makes him money. If people on social media weren't allowed to post outright falsehoods then the entire right-wing rage machine would collapse in on itself and social media companies' KPIs would tank.
Gud 9mo ago
Not sure why this is getting down voted. I remember how masks were proclaimed to be ineffective. I remember how masks were suddenly effective, but only available for medical personnel. Then when masks were available for everyone, they became mandated.