ttt0

60 ms·

631.
by ttt0 6y ago
Hold on a second, the affidavit you've linked shows a screenshot (exhibit 2) from a website that says that he voted in AZ. Am I missing something?
632.
by ttt0 6y ago
That's interesting, thanks for answer. > This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't. Well, I saw with my own eyes that people were banned for posting the inform
633.
by ttt0 6y ago
This is not speech, it's just a fundraiser for research. And Braynard already achieved his goals, he did the research that he wanted and the results are included in lawsuits as evidence . Deplatforming him, if anything, only gave him
634.
by ttt0 6y ago
Surveying people was just one thing that he did. He also matched the voters with NCOA database, that could indicate that people from other states voted and things like that. One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett: http
635.
by ttt0 6y ago
Actually yes, I would be surprised, because it would be completely fucked, excuse my language. Punishing someone on the basis of other people's reaction is just one step away from collective responsibility, and that's what happens
636.
by ttt0 6y ago
I often see in twitter bios disclaimers like "opinions are my own" and "retweets are not endorsement". I'm guessing people should now start putting a new disclaimer, them simply being retweeted by someone else doesn
637.
by ttt0 6y ago
Sure, just like Cologne never happened, Paris riots weren't news worthy, BLM protests were fiery but mostly peaceful, etc.
638.
by ttt0 6y ago
All right then, show me where exactly can you see the dog-whistling here: https://archive.md/e5mwk
639.
by ttt0 6y ago
Do whatever you want, but the caveat with that is that according to him, the journalists didn't even bothered to ask him about his actual findings, so don't expect the articles to be unbiased.
640.
by ttt0 6y ago
Nothing you've said was in any way coherent, while my point is pretty clear. You should not be punished for something you did not do.
641.
by ttt0 6y ago
I don't care, you moved the goalposts, so research the topic yourself. You can find him @MattBraynard on twitter.
642.
by ttt0 6y ago
What are you even talking about? You can't compare teaching people how to sell heroin or rob a bank and conducting a research. What I take issue with is that they kicked him out for something that he did not do.
643.
by ttt0 6y ago
Sure, "facts" that are irrelevant to the topic. But if you insist, Matt Braynard managed to raise the money on some other platform and he did found enough potentially illegal votes to swing some states. Mainly people who moved out
644.
by ttt0 6y ago
You're moving the goalposts.
645.
by ttt0 6y ago
That's cool, but he started the campaign on November 6 and they kicked him out the next day. He didn't say anywhere that the fraud happened or not. He was just raising money for the research.
646.
by ttt0 6y ago
GoFundMe deplatformed Matt Braynard when he tried to raise money for the voter fraud research. He didn't even assert that the fraud happened or not and they still kicked him off for what they've said is "disinformation".
647.
by ttt0 6y ago
Censor what exactly? YouTube is a platform, not a person. YouTube is the one censoring other people.
648.
by ttt0 6y ago
vim?
649.
by ttt0 6y ago
https://static01.nyt.com/elections-assets/2020/data/api/2020... You can grab the rest of them by changing the `pennsylvania` part.
650.
by ttt0 6y ago
Now that's what I call a loaded question. You're right, they technically don't. But they ban everything that can be even remotely interpreted as "offensive". To give you one example, I got banned for pointing out
651.
by ttt0 6y ago
I don't know, I haven't been on facebook since ages, because I got sick of constantly being banned for discussing politics.
652.
by ttt0 6y ago
I don't keep track of this, but there is a lot of "canceling" going on recently. If we talk strictly about politics, I did saw a couple of left-leaning people who got fired for politics, because the angry mob went after their
653.
by ttt0 6y ago
The most offensive thing is not even the censorship, but how awful and almost completely useless search engines have become. Years ago I used to be able to find almost anything, no matter how obscure it was, if I tried hard enough. Today I
654.
by ttt0 6y ago
That's not how the Overton Window works. The Overton Window says what kind of opinions are socially acceptable. If you describe those things are mainstream, they're by definition inside the Overton Window. Also, correct me if I&
655.
by ttt0 6y ago
I could bet money that the opposite of what you're saying is true. But I think that illustrates a much bigger problem. The society is so polarized, that we can't even agree on basic facts. Something went terribly wrong with the in
656.
by ttt0 6y ago
It seems that way, because these are the people that are the most vocal about it. Indeed, most people who complain about this are just grifters. The reason you don't hear about normal people complaining about this is because they are n
657.
by ttt0 6y ago
> Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. Sure it doesn't, I brought 230 up because you've equated the ability to post content with endorsement of that content. And again, I&#x27
658.
by ttt0 6y ago
I often do self reflection and I still think I am right. Censorship is dangerous. I know, crazy thing to say, right?
659.
by ttt0 6y ago
That's a really weird way of looking at this. HN is not endorsing my point of view by letting me publish comments here. Isn't that what the Section 230 is all about, by the way? I know there is no law preventing social media from
660.
by ttt0 6y ago
Wasn't gab kicked off from their domain registrar? I don't know much about Parler, but going just by what people are saying, it seems just like twitter but for conservatives, so it's no good either. Not sure what gab is now u

More ›