Oh man, if Trump got upset over that tweet, I can only imagine what would happen if they put something like "Confirmed/Believed to be false by these sources...." on his other tweets that have been confirmed to be false/incorrect/lies.
The US isn't really a true democracy (representative or otherwise). In the US rural areas get higher voting power than urban areas.
Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election completely because of this fact. The idea of granting voting power based on land dates back to slavery [1] where they wanted to give power to wealthy landowners.
It was intended to be a representative democracy. It is not representative because it assigns unequal voting power to constituents based on what state they live in.
Ok. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
Because constitutional amendments are hard to pass, by design.
You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now).
There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this.
There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive:
Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That doesn't mean they ought to be.
I/the poster is claiming small states should be allowed to be "bullied" by larger states since smaller states have less people, and thus, are less important.
To counterbalance the impact of factions, ensure that national level politicians continue to pay attention, and generally counteract the soft power that comes from having a higher population.
If you think it’s such a benefit, then move there. That’s your right as a citizen.
But almost no one does because that small political benefit doesn’t outweigh the many benefits that population centers enjoy.
So, voting power is the best way to counterbalance the downsides of living in a small state?
I'd understand if someone proposed, for example, increased federal aid for smaller states that don't have as many support systems, but voting power seems like the wrong way to do this. (Same reason we don't use laws to fix inequality).
By this logic, all policy and political decisions would be made by California, Texas, and New York. The point is not to give more voting power to anyone, but you equalize.
If the majority of the populations are in these states, why should they not be the primary drivers of political decisions? This won't magically ignore the other states, it simply means a the majority of the population would actually have control of their government - this is a bad thing how exactly?
The extra voting comes from giving them enough legislative say that they can negotiate for their own benefits in the Senate.
The Senate is a counter-balancing force to the population distributed House of Representatives. The Senate is meant to represent each state as an equal and autonomous member of the union.
Your snark aside, horse-trading in the senate seems to be what accomplished small state agendas.
The US government was never meant to be a democracy, and certainly not one with fully equal representation across states.
The majority of the country already has a majority of the representation — only 1 in 10 states has the minimal representation, thus extra voting. The majority of votes in the House, by a wide margin, are distributed based on population with less than 3% going to minimums in excess of population.
But if you truly believe this is a better way, implement it on a regional or state level first to model for the rest of the country how well it works. That’s the beauty of autonomous states — we can try before we fully commit.
Populations in these states have 100% power over their government and are already primary drivers of political decisions that do not affect other states. However, why people in California should have to be the primary driver of political decisions affecting people in Montana? This would be a good thing how exactly?
It's also not a true democracy because individuals don't vote on all measures. Instead, we elect representatives who do the voting for us, typically in line with, or in a more educated fashion than, we would on our own (well, at least that's what my social studies teacher said back in the day). I don't think there are any major countries which are true direct democracies although if you like the idea see the Demarchists in Alastair Reynolds science fiction. Everybody votes on everything.
Straight democracy is a disaster, rightly avoided whenever possible. Allowing "the masses" to dictate policy such as you propose results in giant unsustainable welfare states, where the masses in cities vote themselves the property of those who produce, based on sheer numbers. It is an appeal to the masses, a fallacy.
Trump has no power here and he isn't the legislative branch. The best he can do is try to reinterpret Section 230 and get Barr embarrassed in court trying to defend his nonsense.
Twitter should just ban him in response so he can go on gab with his racist and incel supporters, which is where he would already be if he didn't believe that Twitter was the superior forum for direct celebrity access.
There won't be a Supreme Court test. The law is explicit and so is the First Amendment. They can appeal it all they like, the Court won't hear it because it's idiotic.
When I left China 9 years ago, I used to think the internet with social media is a great democratizing power. It opens information to common Chinese to the extent that the government cannot control all the narratives anymore, especially with social medias like Twitter.
Now after staying in US for 9 years, I'm not sure if the internet is such a positive power any more. It might actually just be the opposite. With internet and social media, it enables information bubble to form. It enables people to live in totally isolated worlds. And it is almost impossible to penetrate through the bubbles to reach the other side. In US, it fueled the ever growing polarization in the society, essentially created 2 or more totally different US'. While in China, the government creates its narrative bubble through its propaganda machine and censorship. Rather than the liberation of people's mind we hoped to see, we actually seeing people's opinion more converged to the official narrative.
I'm afraid, even someday CCP loosens it's iron grip of censorship, we still won't see the information freedom we hoped for. But rather bubbles like US, just with one giant bubble of official narrative, and many tiny bubbles of other opinions, which can never penetrate the giant bubble.
The world in general is more bubbled than the web, and most people spend their whole lives not having substantive experience with people from other countries. And where does a gay individual find alternative stories in a world without the web? The world before the web was a terrible fishbowl for anyone who didn't have money or access.
The web gives people choice where before you either had the money to live a "broad" lifestyle or you didn't. That some people choose to stay within little boundaries is the way the world has always worked, but at least they have a choice.
It was recently affirmed in court that the first amendment applies to the government, not corporations. See PragerU v Youtube. I'm curious what he thinks he's going to do though. Any guesses?
Overwhelming = under 25% of the US population that voted for him in 2016? Even among registered voters only it's still under 50% - how is that overwhelming?
Big citation needed on who of non-voters support Trump. Most opinion polls that include anyone (not just registered voters) still have Trump's approval at 40ish percent the past 4 years.
If you say all polling is invalid/not representative, where are you getting your numbers from?
his base is tiny. he was only elected because he had a base, plus a lot of republicans held their noses and voted for him. His true base is getting smaller every day; I have a bunch of friends in the midwest and many of them have reported that even the folks they knew who were huge Trump supporters have decided he's crossed too many lines (specifically, disrespecting the military, the covid press briefings, attacking people unnecessarily, and not actually helping working people) and plan to simply not vote in the presidential election (rather than voting for biden). I was struck at how many of my friends reported this rapid shift over the past few months.
Your guess is as good as mine. Personally, I think the free speech issue is an albatross. What’s much more concerning to me is Twitter arbitrarily “fact checking” Trump’s tweets, but nobody else’s. More generally, the systemic bias tends to lean against conservative voices far more often than liberal voices. There are numerous examples of double standards in terms of who is banned or censored from platforms, or even who/what shows up in the search results.
Search “Joe Biden creepy” on google, and then search the same thing on Bing. Why are the results so different?
Try sending a private message on Facebook containing the string “joebiden.info.” Why won’t it send?
I have a hard time believing that the results page for “Joe Biden creepy” is not at least semi-manually curated. For example, none of the “creepy” videos that show up are the most comprehensive versions of the clips someone would want to watch to inform themselves of what somebody is referring to when calling him creepy. It’s also not hard for me to believe Google would take such action, given the political makeup of their employees, and the fact that they have been recorded suggesting their commitment to making Trump a “blip” in history.
It’s also worth noting that was only one example I cited. It doesn’t change the fact that Twitter has only ever “fact checked” Trump (by linking to CNN), and that Facebook prohibits you from sending links to JoeBiden.info in private messages. Are these not clear examples of bias?
You can make the argument that these companies have the right to as much bias as they want on their own platforms. But you cannot in good faith make the argument that such bias does not exist, or that it’s some conspiracy theory to suggest that it does.
Here’s the thing: most of us here don’t really care about left or right. We care about good and bad ideas. And for the most part, the Republicans espouse really bad ideas, so bad in fact, that reasonable people vocally call them out on these bad ideas. You and others misperceive this attention as “bias”. Why? It’s simple.
Studies of conservatives show that they prefer authoritarianism and unquestioning loyalty over competency and expertise. When their loyalty to an idea, a leader, or a political ideology is questioned, it undermines their worldview. So the “bias” you are really describing, is just good old fashioned critical thinking, which by its very design, confronts and questions authority, and upholds values of openness, tolerance, and free inquiry—the bane of conservatism.
All you have to do is come up with good ideas. It’s that simple.
Critical thinking is great. We should all do it. Just because I agree with that doesn’t mean I want or need some company to do the “critical thinking” for me.
In fact, the things you’re defending tend to get in the way of critical thinking. It’s hard to apply critical thought with incomplete information, which is what tends to be available when news agencies apply selection bias to which stories they report, or search engines remove results they deem derogatory, or social media platforms forbid sending links in private messages.
Are you arguing that the factchecking and verification filters Facebook, and now Twitter, are currently using, somehow impede free inquiry? We should be tolerant, but we should not tolerate intolerance. More to the point, we should not tolerate false news, hoaxes, or conspiracy theories intended to mislead or cause harm. Sadly, conservatives have come to /depend/ on that kind of “fact suppression” to sway people over to their side. We saw it with the rise of birtherism, with the hate-fueled advent of the Tea Party, and in the tribal nativism that led to the election of Trump.
You raise the “incomplete information” tactic, which denialists on both the left and the right depend upon. Climate denialists say we shouldn’t mitigate because we don’t have enough data or they argue that the data is suspect. We know, and we have consensus. Do we need more information about the 18,000 lies Trump has spread already?
Facebook and Twitter are already on record (and off record per the WSJ article yesterday) showing that they gave the benefit of the doubt to conservatives because algorithms were consistently selecting their rhetoric as problematic. Twitter wouldn’t filter out the Nazis, for example, because it also targeted Republican politicians.
I’m not arguing whether the bias should or shouldn’t exist. I’m arguing that it does exist, which you seem to be refuting for some reason. And I’m certainly going to argue that if platforms try to claim neutrality, they better show evidence of it, or else stop claiming to be neutral.
Are you okay with Facebook banning links in private messages? Why can’t I link to JoeBiden.info, a clearly marked parody website full of factual information, in a private message to a friend? What possible reason could there be for this, other than bias?
Are you okay with Twitter editorializing the president’s tweets, but not doing the same for those of Adam Schiff or Joe Biden? Both of them have promoted baseless conspiracy theories on Twitter, like suggesting Trump is a Russian agent. Yet they’ve never been “fact checked.” Are you okay with the idea that the person in charge of the fact checking initiative at Twitter has a history of publicly calling Trump a “Nazi” and a “racist tangerine?” Does this seem like an arrangement that will result in anything but biased “fact checks?”
I’m having a hard time seeing how this is good for critical thought, as you seem to be suggesting. Telling people what to think is not the basis upon which critical thought develops. If anything, such editorializing will only further polarize people and increase their emotional attachment to pre-existing beliefs.
I don't Twitter and I don't follow Trump, so I don't know the answer. Does Twitter fact check every Trump tweet? Does it ever find any to be factual? If Trump tweeted that he loves the Jets, would that get fact checked? If he tweeted that FEMA has done a superb job in guiding the WHO through this whole pandemic, would that get fact checked? Or do only some tweets get the treatment?
Who else's tweets are they going to fact check? The Dalai Lama? They have to start somewhere, and a guy who's using their service to spread disinformation about vote by mail in a blatant attempt to rally his base around contesting an election if it doesn't go his way - hours after terrorizing the surviving family of a political staffer for no obvious reason (again with no basis on fact) - seems like a great place to start. Especially if your company isn't (completely) run by invertebrates. Twitter handed Trump a bullhorn. They didn't need to, but they did. For purely business reasons, I'm sure. But they _own_ that bullhorn, and they can take it away whenever they like. "Just business," his TV character would say.
I can make a website right now; donaldtrumpcantposthere.com; and I can put a little chat room there and people can type whatever they want and maybe it'll show up, but you know what? Whoever posts there, I can do whatever I want with it. I might get in trouble for _other_ things (facilitating online bullying, distributing copyrighted material, etc.), but "free speech" is not one of them. That's how it works when you deal with private corporations. Don't like it? Move to China :b
I'd be fine with Twitter fact checking the Dalai Lama. For example, his most recent tweet says "When this blue planet is viewed from space, there are no national boundaries to be seen."
My point is his factually incorrect statements are generally innocuous, whereas the same statement by the _President of the United States_ is much more of a problem. I think it's unreasonable to expect Twitter to regurgitate such dangerous statements uncritically. The slippery slope thing or the "why do anything if it isn't perfect" thing needn't enter into this: Donald Trump's Twitter account is an objectively different problem than the Dalai Lama's Twitter account. (That's a really cool picture, by the way!).
"The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting “in good faith.”
I am not sure why it ever survived. Every other piece of that law was dismantled. At the very minimum, it needs to be reformed so that Big Tech that takes advantage of these protections lose them with evidence of clear abuse, bias, or lack of promoting/allowing opposing viewpoints.
At least it will bring up the larger discussion that the social media platforms are the de facto sources for news and information. Hopefully this will lead to a Senate evaluation of the roles that Twitter, Facebook, and Google play in dissimmination of information to Americans.
Social media are publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
My comment was posted when the article linked here said, Trump was going to sign "something pertaining to social media" on Thursday. We had no details. The article could have been 1 paragraph. That was my point. I didn't have any of the context from today 5/28. No one had it.
Have faith in HN. If you believe it will be crummy, you’ll probably find comments that justify that belief. But believing the opposite usually yields the opposite.
(You can also yield the opposite directly, by writing good comments.)
I went through periods of losing faith too. But ultimately, HN = programmers, writers, and so on. What are the chances of any random programmer/writer being interesting? Much higher than the general population, for some definitions of interesting.
You get what you put in. It often doesn't feel like it, but in the long run it seems to work out that way.
You have to remember that HN is so massive now that it's hard to comprehend just how many people read the top comments. All the world is a stage, but HN particularly so. And personally, I think it's cool you can influence the situation by skill alone – a good top comment can salvage an otherwise hopeless situation.
HN is still just mostly overpaid white guys that are immune from most of societal problems. It's like the rich saying "we're all in this together." Sounds good but deep down you know it's a lie.
In normal times I'd have faith in our institutions to block this blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power. But 2 of the seats in the Supreme Court were filled by the administration itself.
How can you say it's blatantly unconstitutional if the executive order hasn't even been released?
It wouldn't exactly be out of character for him to spend a couple days whipping people into a frenzy then announce the reinterpretation of something that sounds impressive but has no actual meaning and declare it to be a massive victory.
> Social media platforms' legal right as private companies to delete or otherwise regulate speech – or, in this case, tweets – is well established.
I'm curious how this will work out for tweets by the USA president.
Twitter will easily delete anything the Chinese, French, or German government deems "unacceptable" speech. They've never deleted anything that the USA government has requested (the USA government has never requested anything to be deleted).
What's the difference here? What's the double-standard?
It has deleted things in accordance with local law (and it absolutely does delete things illegal in the US). What things were you thinking the US government should ask it to delete? Under what law?
I hope twitter decides they can’t comply with whatever is in the executive order, and simply bans his account instead.
In other news, after a certain threshold, when someone lies on TV, there is an FCC mandate that the broadcaster adds a disclaimer saying the person is spreading false information. There was a lawsuit over this, because stations were broadcasting Trump speeches without adding the disclaimer, and the executive branch isn’t enforcing the rule.
Social media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
It will be very interesting to see if this method of finger in the scales by Twitter stands up. I’m glad to see that they have been forced to apply the same treatment to China, But section 230 simply has to go.
Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
This comment thread is full of people who A) decide not to say anything, probably because they are not sure and B) very vocal people who are extremely sure that the other side is completely corrupt.
I feel like the polarization is harmful.
Interested to hear any background like why he would say the mail in is full of fraud or something and why people are so sure it is not.
Social media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
114 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 92.7 ms ] threadInteresting times. We'll see what happens.
Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election completely because of this fact. The idea of granting voting power based on land dates back to slavery [1] where they wanted to give power to wealthy landowners.
[1]: https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.
You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now).
There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this.
There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That doesn't mean they ought to be.
I/the poster is claiming small states should be allowed to be "bullied" by larger states since smaller states have less people, and thus, are less important.
If you think it’s such a benefit, then move there. That’s your right as a citizen.
But almost no one does because that small political benefit doesn’t outweigh the many benefits that population centers enjoy.
I'd understand if someone proposed, for example, increased federal aid for smaller states that don't have as many support systems, but voting power seems like the wrong way to do this. (Same reason we don't use laws to fix inequality).
The Senate is a counter-balancing force to the population distributed House of Representatives. The Senate is meant to represent each state as an equal and autonomous member of the union.
Your snark aside, horse-trading in the senate seems to be what accomplished small state agendas.
The US government was never meant to be a democracy, and certainly not one with fully equal representation across states.
The majority of the country already has a majority of the representation — only 1 in 10 states has the minimal representation, thus extra voting. The majority of votes in the House, by a wide margin, are distributed based on population with less than 3% going to minimums in excess of population.
But if you truly believe this is a better way, implement it on a regional or state level first to model for the rest of the country how well it works. That’s the beauty of autonomous states — we can try before we fully commit.
Trump has no power here and he isn't the legislative branch. The best he can do is try to reinterpret Section 230 and get Barr embarrassed in court trying to defend his nonsense.
Twitter should just ban him in response so he can go on gab with his racist and incel supporters, which is where he would already be if he didn't believe that Twitter was the superior forum for direct celebrity access.
Passes the inevitable Supreme court test. Are you confident that this supreme court will hold your rights?
Now after staying in US for 9 years, I'm not sure if the internet is such a positive power any more. It might actually just be the opposite. With internet and social media, it enables information bubble to form. It enables people to live in totally isolated worlds. And it is almost impossible to penetrate through the bubbles to reach the other side. In US, it fueled the ever growing polarization in the society, essentially created 2 or more totally different US'. While in China, the government creates its narrative bubble through its propaganda machine and censorship. Rather than the liberation of people's mind we hoped to see, we actually seeing people's opinion more converged to the official narrative.
I'm afraid, even someday CCP loosens it's iron grip of censorship, we still won't see the information freedom we hoped for. But rather bubbles like US, just with one giant bubble of official narrative, and many tiny bubbles of other opinions, which can never penetrate the giant bubble.
The web gives people choice where before you either had the money to live a "broad" lifestyle or you didn't. That some people choose to stay within little boundaries is the way the world has always worked, but at least they have a choice.
If you say all polling is invalid/not representative, where are you getting your numbers from?
And again, what makes this overwhelming?
For “most” do you mean in terms of population count?
For “people” do you mean registered voters ?
Republicans would win every election if that was the case
It's like the IRL version of claiming support from lurkers.
> They would support any republican candidate
Republican Party identification is pretty constant at 25-30%, below both Democratic and Independent.
Search “Joe Biden creepy” on google, and then search the same thing on Bing. Why are the results so different?
Try sending a private message on Facebook containing the string “joebiden.info.” Why won’t it send?
The ads all really just say Obey.
The NY Post is a low quality tabloid that is just a step above the Enquirer, for example.
It’s also worth noting that was only one example I cited. It doesn’t change the fact that Twitter has only ever “fact checked” Trump (by linking to CNN), and that Facebook prohibits you from sending links to JoeBiden.info in private messages. Are these not clear examples of bias?
You can make the argument that these companies have the right to as much bias as they want on their own platforms. But you cannot in good faith make the argument that such bias does not exist, or that it’s some conspiracy theory to suggest that it does.
Studies of conservatives show that they prefer authoritarianism and unquestioning loyalty over competency and expertise. When their loyalty to an idea, a leader, or a political ideology is questioned, it undermines their worldview. So the “bias” you are really describing, is just good old fashioned critical thinking, which by its very design, confronts and questions authority, and upholds values of openness, tolerance, and free inquiry—the bane of conservatism.
All you have to do is come up with good ideas. It’s that simple.
Critical thinking is great. We should all do it. Just because I agree with that doesn’t mean I want or need some company to do the “critical thinking” for me.
In fact, the things you’re defending tend to get in the way of critical thinking. It’s hard to apply critical thought with incomplete information, which is what tends to be available when news agencies apply selection bias to which stories they report, or search engines remove results they deem derogatory, or social media platforms forbid sending links in private messages.
You raise the “incomplete information” tactic, which denialists on both the left and the right depend upon. Climate denialists say we shouldn’t mitigate because we don’t have enough data or they argue that the data is suspect. We know, and we have consensus. Do we need more information about the 18,000 lies Trump has spread already?
Facebook and Twitter are already on record (and off record per the WSJ article yesterday) showing that they gave the benefit of the doubt to conservatives because algorithms were consistently selecting their rhetoric as problematic. Twitter wouldn’t filter out the Nazis, for example, because it also targeted Republican politicians.
Are you okay with Facebook banning links in private messages? Why can’t I link to JoeBiden.info, a clearly marked parody website full of factual information, in a private message to a friend? What possible reason could there be for this, other than bias?
Are you okay with Twitter editorializing the president’s tweets, but not doing the same for those of Adam Schiff or Joe Biden? Both of them have promoted baseless conspiracy theories on Twitter, like suggesting Trump is a Russian agent. Yet they’ve never been “fact checked.” Are you okay with the idea that the person in charge of the fact checking initiative at Twitter has a history of publicly calling Trump a “Nazi” and a “racist tangerine?” Does this seem like an arrangement that will result in anything but biased “fact checks?”
I’m having a hard time seeing how this is good for critical thought, as you seem to be suggesting. Telling people what to think is not the basis upon which critical thought develops. If anything, such editorializing will only further polarize people and increase their emotional attachment to pre-existing beliefs.
Define "quality"
You may find Google results more to your personal liking
Yet others will find Other Search Engine™ has "better" results
This is a popular, but baseless conspiracy theory.
The myth of social media anti-conservative bias refuses to die https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php
I can make a website right now; donaldtrumpcantposthere.com; and I can put a little chat room there and people can type whatever they want and maybe it'll show up, but you know what? Whoever posts there, I can do whatever I want with it. I might get in trouble for _other_ things (facilitating online bullying, distributing copyrighted material, etc.), but "free speech" is not one of them. That's how it works when you deal with private corporations. Don't like it? Move to China :b
Here's a photo from space of the India-Pakistan border: https://qz.com/india/516864/the-india-pakistan-border-is-so-...
Assuming that's not a fake photo (or that this one is: https://time.com/4780003/international-borders-from-space/), I would say that sufficient evidence exists to say that what the Dalai Lama stated is factually incorrect.
"The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting “in good faith.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media...
He can't change the first amendment.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/499808-appeals-court-r...
(You can also yield the opposite directly, by writing good comments.)
You get what you put in. It often doesn't feel like it, but in the long run it seems to work out that way.
You have to remember that HN is so massive now that it's hard to comprehend just how many people read the top comments. All the world is a stage, but HN particularly so. And personally, I think it's cool you can influence the situation by skill alone – a good top comment can salvage an otherwise hopeless situation.
FTFY
How many citizens have lost any faith in the US government? Trump has created long-lasting damaged in the US democracy.
It wouldn't exactly be out of character for him to spend a couple days whipping people into a frenzy then announce the reinterpretation of something that sounds impressive but has no actual meaning and declare it to be a massive victory.
I'm curious how this will work out for tweets by the USA president.
Twitter will easily delete anything the Chinese, French, or German government deems "unacceptable" speech. They've never deleted anything that the USA government has requested (the USA government has never requested anything to be deleted).
What's the difference here? What's the double-standard?
In other news, after a certain threshold, when someone lies on TV, there is an FCC mandate that the broadcaster adds a disclaimer saying the person is spreading false information. There was a lawsuit over this, because stations were broadcasting Trump speeches without adding the disclaimer, and the executive branch isn’t enforcing the rule.
I feel like the polarization is harmful.
Interested to hear any background like why he would say the mail in is full of fraud or something and why people are so sure it is not.
1. https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pendleton-County-mail-carr...