ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

There are probably variances among polls, but this sample from 2000 shows 18% of Americans believed the election was stolen[0] (and it heavily leans Democratic).

Before the 2020 election, we see "record low" confidence, particularly among Republicans[1].

After the election, this poll shows 34% believe the win was not legitimate[2], nearly double from 20 years earlier.

There are several differences between 2000 and 2020[3], the biggest being that 2020 was not a close Election. Biden won 306-232 in the Electoral College, and 81,281,502 (51.3%) to 74,222,593 (46.9%) in popular votes. Yet the disbelief is double.

Donald Trump has been claiming election fraud even when he won in 2016, but his own task force found little evidence[4]. What explains such a change in belief?

In my opinion, this is where amplifying voices that espouse opinions further from the mainstream and center of the political spectrum (extremism) causes that to spread, for culture to fracture, or in a word, polarization.

So given the options of making it easy to reach everyone on mainstream social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit vs pushing extremes out of the mainstream megaphone, it seems that the better option is the latter. Extremism (and polarization) will likely happen either way, but it seems like amplifying and accelerating it is actually the worse option.

[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheat...

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/321665/confidence-accuracy-elec...

[2] https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685

[3] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934190243/fact-check-whats-ha...

[4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-o...

I find it strange the statement is a screenshot from a third-party twitter account. Where's the official statement from ACLU?

“nobody wants to die for trump”

4 people did die for Trump during this ‘boomer chimpout’. What makes you think more would not have been willing to get involved if it looked like it was building traction?

Also, they planted bombs in the DNC and RNC, and look - petrol bombs: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/alabama-man-charged-posse...

There is lower confidence because there have been more issues. 2020 has been a hectic year. Ascribing the lower confidence entirely to the media is not a convincing argument.

Regardless, that’s not really my point. A sizable portion of the population thinks the election was fishy. Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” doesn’t accomplish anything when it comes to reducing polarization.

I genuinely don’t see the problem with a robust investigation that puts the country as ease, and I don’t understand why anyone would be against such a thing.

Not to mention that removing “extremist” voices entirely would have prevented, say, the Civil Rights movement from occurring. At the time it was absolutely not mainstream. A blanket rule against non-mainstream media is clearly a bad idea, but everyone is too short-sighted to understand that.

> Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong”

Not sure anyone said that. Judges reviewed court cases, and failing to find legitimate cases, dismissed them. That's not saying "you're dumb and wrong." That's saying - you do not have a case because you don't have evidence.

> a robust investigation

It sounds like each side defines a "robust investigation" differently. Given that judges from both major political parties dismissed nearly every court filing, and there is still no tangible evidence of widespread election fraud, when do we stop "investigating?"

The problem with theories made without evidence is that there is no way to "disprove" them because they are not falsifiable statements[0].

In this case, the request seems to be to have everyone who wants to believe whether or not there was widespread election fraud would need to review 160 million votes with their own eyes, rather than believe the bipartisan election officials as well as the bipartisan judges that reviewed the court filings. That's an unreasonable bar to cross.

[0] http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/cons...

Unfalsifiability

> Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.

> Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with.

CONSPIRACY THEORY & CONSPIRACISM

> WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil.

> YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here?

> THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them.

> YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.