221–230 of 872 posts
This authoritarianism is powered by the people, not by direct Government action.
What should you be fighting for? Making these platforms public utilities so using them would confirm protection of the 1st amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious about where you see an institutionalized support on the left for election tampering claims, if you have any sources.
“Racially motivated patterns of voter suppression are responsible for Stacey Abrams not being governor of Georgia right now.” — South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), in remarks in Bow, N.H., Oct. 25, 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/did-racia... Also don't forget about Bush v. Gore. It's apparently a "historic" moment when Gore finally conceded the election to Bush. https://www.history.co…
There are many such examples.
I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…
A reminder that The Hill can put MP4s on their own servers and host them this way.
[0] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/595709-white-hou...
[1] https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1499545712668905473
[2] I'm speaking of course of LumenDatabase, which used to be called "chillingeffects.org" back when Google was ostensibly in accord with its philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy And why would that be the better way to go about it? Respecting an election you consider stolen that an institution favored to "respect the institution" means you're respecting a faulty institution - and encouraging similar behavior in the futur…
Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. In 2020's case, there was no dodginess, but nevertheless one candidate would rather discredit the institution rather than admit he lost, and -there is nothing to replace it with-. We've had 250 years of peaceful transfers of power because of this system; without a un…
The question you aren't answering is: At what point do YOU draw the line. Stop trying to explain that the line wasn't crossed in 2020 election (or in any other election before that).
When, according to you, is the line crossed and the system has shown itself to be faulty.
My claim is that your answer will be either a deflection or implication that the system can never be faulty (anything but a clear answer).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
What is the falsifiable hypothesis of the stolen election? There's nothing coherent about an ever evolving list of grievances. I'm convinced this is by design. If there were a sound theory, it could be disproven. But if its just a nebulous collection of disjointed complaints, the wound can stay open forever, which is the actual goal.
It doesn't "prove" a stolen election but it does raise suspicions.
If it's nonsense, then why censor it? If it's not nonsense, then why censor it?
Because people believe the nonsense and then storm the capital, and/or support overturning democratic elections in order to allow would-be dictators to seize power.
Misinformation can have a serious and deeply negative impact on the world, and the general public is clearly not immune to it.
I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? The discussion has to be one of nuance, but i think back to the days of TVs (lol). TV and radio had (to my understanding) laws about what you can say on air, different than what you would encounter on the sidewalk. It seems to make sense. After all, piping instructions on drinking bleach into everyones home seems bad. Inciting riots in mass seems bad. I don't kn…
> If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? Not comparable.
Please let me know if you know how to fix this unfortunate typo.
It's scary how many of the systems we were worried about in China (e.g. social credit system, censorship, etc.) are basically being created now in the west through the proxy of critical companies blocking access and/or working together.
I don’t get why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host. Youtube should be socialized and forced to become a content-neutral storage? But why?!? We have the internet, where you can rent or run your own server and storage and post your conspiracy theory videos.