Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first “protestor” pled to seditious conspiracy just yesterday. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1462481/downl... Likely many other people will be pulled into this if you read the above indictment.
I'm not sure how many "many" is, but my understanding is the vast majority of people involved were merely trespassing.
YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
291–300 of 872 posts
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it's 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.
Specious argument. First of all, the democrats did a lot of calling of elections into question, and so have republicans, and so what? Second, there has been an enormous amount of violence in the U.S. in the past several years, and the vast majority of that did not happen on 2021-01-06. Third, "storming" of capitols is a thing that has happened plenty in the U.S., and fairly recently too, once in the past year alone i…
Your argument seems to boil down to: “bad things have happened before, so bad things aren’t bad”.
1. In a close election, contesting it or demanding a recount is fine and sane. Step aside once the results of that process are in. Trying to discredit the entire system with a mountain of bullshit and overthrow an election when it is overwhelmingly clear that it did not go in your favor is an incredibly dangerous road for us to go down. The two practices are incomparable.
2. I can’t understand this argument. Are you saying that 1.6.21 must compose a minimum of 51% of all violence in the US over the past several years before it qualifies as an issue?
3. Presidents inciting their supporters to violently overthrow elections that did not go in their favor is not a thing that has happened plenty recently nor should it ever.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.
That's funny, I remember Roger Stone staging fake protests to stop court-ordered recounts until the Bush team ran out the clock. Guess memory is a fickle thing!
Far too few people are aware of the Brooks Brothers riot.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#294This is what "private companies can do what they like" results in.
Yes, but sadly I’m not convinced that “private companies can’t do what they like” would necessarily turn out different.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host For the same reasons that AT&T can't terminate your phone service if they hear you talking about something that's opposed to the political preferences of AT&T or its leadership. These companies have become the public square and the law needs to be updated to reflect that. If they have to become public utilities fine. There's a big diffe…
Youtube doesn’t have any kind of monopoly on posting videos to the internet.
What they do have is a brand and a social network that surfaces, promotes, and moderates video content to drive engagement and ad views.
They’ve grown large by moderating and curating content but now that they’ve done so they should no longer be allowed to moderate and curate content? Makes no sense whatsoever.
You’re pronouncing youtube a “public square”, which should therefore be seized by the government… But what is this extremely strong claim based on? youtube is just one of an endless series of options for posting videos on the internet.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps he means both? Both of those are examples of behavior that is unusual, particularly because they're done in such a brazen way. That's what makes the world less recognizable.
Agreed, both sides are authoritarian. It's not mutually exclusive.
Confession: I only just realized over the past few years. I had always thought that authoritarians were a right phenomenon.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#297Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#298Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
By gerrymandering I hope you’re including Democrats in NY state
Instead of trying to "both sides" gerrymandering, why don't you work out how many votes it takes on average for a Democrat to win an election, and how many it takes a Republican. With that information, you can infer which party has the most motivation to end gerrymandering.
There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels.
Large scale change is supposed to require multiple types of majority, not just a snap mob decision. That’s a feature, not a bug.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.
Right. Once the case was over he stepped aside instead of trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.
> ” trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.”
This is pure hyperbole and exaggeration. Emphasis on “our whole system of government”.