2019-nCoV

6 ms·

1.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Where were the riots after white woman Justine Damond was brutally killed by a black police officer in Minneapolis just a few years back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
2.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
The local forces failed (rather told to stand down) in Minneapolis. You really think they'd let the city just burn to the ground before bringing federal agencies?
3.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
How is that glorifying violence?
4.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Upholding the bedrock of democracy. The EO spells out the reasoning: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...
5.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Where have Fox News editorialised users content?
6.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Exactly. Politics is the mind killer. Would they have the same opinion if Twitter was a right-leaning Trump-mouthpiece that was disproportionately quelling left-leaning voices? Take a step back and recognise you can agree with Trump's
7.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
If you're intellectually honest and advocate for a system that controls people, turn over the keys to your enemies for a dry run.
8.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
> If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Tru
9.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
HN does not editorialise and haphazardly censor.
10.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Backing down to who? It becomes US law.
11.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Akin to banning cigarette advertising, this will free up many millions in the war against misinformation. Would absolve Twitter from any future calls for debunking/censorship. Can't wait to see it enacted.
12.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
13.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
A great place to see what lies ahead for a divisive society
14.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Only ex post...
15.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
How would anyone know what number of votes constitutes that difference until Nov 3?
16.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
> Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12656495454107443... $TWTR alrea
17.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
You'd be wise too, but you wouldn't be rejecting it empirically.
18.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
No, we're talking about an election in the future that hasn't happened yet.
19.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
> experts shows that fraud is slightly more common with mail-in voting than in-person voting at polling places So where is the line between slightly and substantial?
20.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
How many fraudulent votes constitutes a substantial amount? What percentage?
21.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
How can a statement about the future be empirically wrong?
22.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Twitter brought this upon themselves. It's going to be 2016 all over again.
23.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Which is why it's a non-sequitur. Any well-adjusted adult with a modicum of common sense can see through such claims. Cults and conspiracies flourished long before FB's existence, as they will after. Removing such content just val
24.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Yes, the misleading dietary advice was objectively worse. How many needless deaths lost to the likes of diabetes and heart disease. The ramifications of the replication crisis (of which social media censorship also runs afoul) run much deep
25.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
> Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washin
26.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
> Where's the voter fraud data showing that vote by mail causes a massive amount of fraud? Where's the data showing that wearing a red hat causes a lot of abuse to be yelled at you by strangers? The answer is historically, not
27.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Has there been a more polarising American politician than Trump in living memory? Voter fraud is not a constant. It is completely dynamic. Just his Tweet completely changes reality. Now, if it does proceed, we'll see increased scrutiny
28.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
Do you have a contrary example?
29.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
This is not going to end well. Every single aspect of life that cannot be rigorously tested under the scientific method is destined to become a partisan topic. There is no way to be sure if mail-in ballots will be anything less than substan
30.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
For Twitter use curated lists. This allows you to avoid "the algorithm". You are bemoaning YouTube's discovery process, you need not watch what's "Up Next" — that's your choice.

More ›