141–150 of 1001 posts
Regardless of what you believe to be 'The Truth', has suppression or censorship ever worked to quench dissonance or convince skeptical people, again, whether right or wrong, that there really is 'nothing to see here'.
Regardless of what you believe to be 'The Truth', has suppression or censorship ever worked to quench dissonance or convince skeptical people, again, whether right or wrong, that there really is 'nothing to see here'.
Yes, it has, to a degree. C.f. Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. (These voices became much less prominent after their deplatforming.) There's also a deontological argument to be made for banning dangerous falsehoods on one's platform.
Doesn't this just feed into people's fears about conspiracies? I can't understand why people are signing off on this. Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.
Doesn't this just feed into people's fears about conspiracies? I can't understand why people are signing off on this. Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.
Regardless of what you believe to be 'The Truth', has suppression or censorship ever worked to quench dissonance or convince skeptical people, again, whether right or wrong, that there really is 'nothing to see here'.
Society can only function if those with opposing views at least agree on ground rules to debate on. Unchecked expression of view with no option for rebuttal from the other side will only destroy society. We have cases were US Senate candidates don't even show up for pre-election debates.
Doesn't this just feed into people's fears about conspiracies? I can't understand why people are signing off on this. Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.
Doesn't this just feed into people's fears about conspiracies? I can't understand why people are signing off on this. Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.
Likes and disklikes are way too easy to game imo
Joe Biden, who won the most votes of any candidate in American history with 66% turnout and 51.3% of the vote, still had his announcement video [0] at 50/50 like/dislike.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbOU2fTg6cI&feature=youtu.be
Regardless of what you believe to be 'The Truth', has suppression or censorship ever worked to quench dissonance or convince skeptical people, again, whether right or wrong, that there really is 'nothing to see here'.
in France you can get fined or go to jail for saying fascist stuff, works pretty well.
The FN (yeah yeah they changed names, who cares) still spews its hatred behind closed doors, our police forces are amongst the worst offenders of any developed countries when it comes to racism and systemic issues (and consistently proving that even the police unions are a bunch of thugs), we have people like Zemmour on TV spewing hateful nonsense that even Fox News would probably frown at by now, and our own current government has been trying to get a law in place to prevent freedom of press so significantly that the UN and most of the world looking at those pieces of news have actually been ringing the alarms in every possible way.
While on a personal and biased level I certainly don't mind that daddy Le Pen was fined multiple times throughout the years for calling the Holocaust "a detail of history", we don't really have any proof that it does anything more than make people who dislike him (like me) happy to see him fined, and unfortunately give reasons for supporters of his bullshit to feel vindicated (i.e. rise of the extreme right everywhere with a very salient point regarding being "silenced", which crystallizes to the extreme in stuff coming from the US like Qanon).
Youtube is having a tough time because they're almost always pointed at first and foremost for being THE rabbit hole of misinformation/radicalization and other things, but they're stepping into a minefield by touching on one such hot subject without having a broader policy (extending beyond whatever the current US issue is at any moment), backed by an army of lawyers.
(I've stopped following the battles of up and downvotes on this message instead of any actual reply.. I'm only left to wonder how many of either are emotional responses over valuing the argument itself, and on this subject even HN isn't proving to be very different from reddit today)
It creates bubbles and divide between people if there are no common ground on de facto monopolies like Reddit, Facebook or Youtube.
Reddit banned Trumps fanclub on Reddit and they reopened on a their own server with far more relaxed rules concerning incitement to violence. Pushing people out of common ground is not a very good longterm solution ...
Is there any article or video out there that outlines a compelling case of how massive election fraud could have even occurred ? I do believe some election fraud happened, how could it not with 150MM voters in this past election. But I have yet to read a single article that could outline any explanation for how democrats stole 8MM votes so Trump lost, but did not change down-ballot votes so that they also lost house…
(1) It's not 8mm votes (popular vote disparity) that needed to be flipped, it's only the disparity in swing states that needs to be flipped.
(2) If election voting systems were hacked, that could explain a large number of votes specifically in swing states. You can check the time series data from Edison Research which is publicly available on the NYT static data page to see the irregularities for yourself. For example you can see the Trump N votes decrement by X000s in MI and PA when it should be monotonically increasing. This might be an API glitch, it might be fraud, or it might have an innocuous explanation. Mainstream news doesn't report on these irregularities.
(3) Widespread fraud isn't alleged. Targeted fraud at swing states is the claim.
(4) Fraudulent ballots or vote switching by voting machines might have only flipped the POTUS choice. Dr Shiva had allegations on this which he's detailed in a YT video alongside data that he believes supports this hypothesis. Again, the mainstream media has not reported on this.
I've personally looked into (2) and (4) in some detail. I find (4) to be meritless and an artefact of the way they've presented the data. I find (2) to be totally real, but an innocuous explanation such as an API error to be much more likely than fraud.