It is pretty unreal, something like 1 out of 4 of his tweet were hidden, at some point you'd think they would disable his account but that would probably put them in a dangerous position.
he should've taken meaningful action against tech company censorship. now they are officially incorporated as a wing of the DNC and republicans will never win another election.
Fox News was not the "controlled oposition." Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, was Trump's original booster and Fox News's coverage of Trump's 2016 campaign is the reason Trump is even president.
For the past four years, Fox News has essentially operated as the propaganda arm of the Trump White House. Trump had a direct line to the owner of Fox News. Half of the Fox News commentators were personal advisors to Trump.
He's literally lying at this point and putting the democratic system of the US in jeopardy by saying he "won by a lot". Terminate his account. He doesn't have a right to post dangerous falsehoods on a third-party platform.
Dorsey has said that much of what Trump says on the platform is newsworthy, and therefore Twitter allows it. Were they to suspend Trump’s account, it would necessarily be because his Tweets are no longer newsworthy. I can’t see that happening.
Did the Democrats put the democratic system at risk when they made unsubstantiated claims that Trump stole the election with the aid of a foreign power?
Edit: Based the downvotes, I’ll take that as a no. When your team claims fraud, you’re protecting democracy. When the other team claims fraud, they’re destroying democracy. Got it.
Russian interfered via hacking emails, leaking them, polarizing voters by advertisement (only worth 100k$ though), and maybe even leaking a fake steele dossier.
But no american has been even indicted of collusion with russia, from what I understand. So trump campaign did not work with russia, even if russia put in efforts that helped trump
Russia's interference in the election still aided Trump's campaign, even if the DOJ was unable to conclusively prove there was any collusion to obtain that aid.
The Mueller Report documents that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump meant with Russians multiple times to coordinate political activities during the 2016 campaign.
They weren't indicted because AG Barr, Donald Trump's personal appointee, has refused to indict them.
It is very possible that they could be indicted within the next year.
It would not be one administration prosecuting another, it would be non-partisan prosecutors prosecuting criminals.
Donald Trump attempted to politicize the DOJ, but otherwise it is a non-political entity and has prosecuted Republicans and Democrats alike during previous administrations.
It's important to remember that "unproven" and even "disproven" are not equivalent to "unsubstantiated". Otherwise, it would be impossible to make any reasonable criticism of anybody for anything. The Russia question was a criticism that came from something. Trump's various claims come from nothing.
I've seen some claims of voting irregularities that I find credible. But think more local guy decides on his own to do small scale cheating, rather than an organized campaign. And I suspect it's not big enough to matter. For Trump to declare himself winner is certainly reckless.
Trump will win this election because there is more than enough evidence of voter fraud in favor of Biden particularly in the swing states PI, MI, WI, NV. Here's some evidence of how the democrats are trying to steal the election: https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical...
That study has references to the data sources, including web-archived snapshots of official government websites. What is bias the US national media which published totally wrong polls that predicted a democratic "blue-wave" and is ignoring all of the fraud evidence.
Wisconsin[1] and Michigan had turnout in the low 70s, not close to 100% as claimed. Turnout was high, but only a few points higher than recent years.
There legitimately are some batches of votes where Biden got close to 100% of the votes due to segregation and mail-in votes being counted separately. The mail-in votes in a predominately black area should be expected to be close to 100% for Biden. It would be suspicious if they weren't.
> The mail-in votes in a predominately black area should be expected to be close to 100% for Biden. It would be suspicious if they weren't.
Consider that Trump won the largest share of non-white voters of any Republican in 60 years, including historic numbers of Latino and African Americans.
You’re moving the goalposts all over the place but sure, Trump/Republicans made some inroads with PoC in certain areas (Miami-dade, south Texas) and lost it elsewhere (Arizona) but your own links don’t describe it as “historic”:
> Eighty percent of Black men supported Joe Biden, down slightly from Hilary Clinton’s 82 percent
Yes, registered black male Republicans in conservative states in the South and Midwest voted for Trump at higher numbers.
The parent comment noted that in some heavily black PA districts, there were few/no registered Republicans, and those few that were there presumably voted in person due to the GOP spending months trashtalking mail-in votes.
In-person results were tabulated on Tuesday. Under recent PA law, mail-in ballots couldn't be counted before Tuesday. As Democrats generally vote mail-in in higher numbers, this meant that the mail-in ballots would be overwhelmingly Democratic with few if any Republican ballots.
Per your link, 80% of black men supported Biden. Given that mail in ballots have tended to be in Biden's favor, in large part because Trump asked his supporters to vote in person, I don't think it's a stretch to see almost all mail in ballots from black areas going to Biden.
Twitter provides an amplification of Trump’s falsehoods through the ease of retweeting. With the warnings, retweeting is impossible, which dampens the spread of misinformation. Every bit counts. The typical right wing only platforms don’t have the same reach as Twitter - not even close.
Twitter also put a disclaimer on a U.S. Senator who was quoting Kentucky Democrat Ed Pritchard https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/132478060579671654... and blocked a tweet from @marklevinshow that merely articulated Art. II, §1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution!
Why doesn’t your comment contradict itself? You say you don’t want to see posts or talk about it on here, but you obviously decided to go through the comments.
Now would be a good time to suspend the account on numerous repeated violations. You've never seen any account which was given as much slack as this one.
Don't care if it's neo-nazis, islamic jihadists, cult-like evangelical christians, militant atheists, or the President.
All ideas should be allowed. Specific calls for action of violence/killing should be restricted, but Trump isn't doing that. I don't know why people think this is ok.
You can say that gay lifestyles are against God's will (OK) without saying people should punish gays for being gay (BAD)... note that I am an atheist have neither of these beliefs it's just an example
I'm all for nuance, but I can't imagine this being the hill people want to die on RE: censorship. As long as the calls for violence aren't overt we're cool with them? I might be in the minority but I don't have a problem lumping plain old hate speech in with inciting violence. I'm trying to imagine the best possible take on what Trump is trying to do by tweeting incendiary misinformation and I just can't get there.
I'm not advocating for censorship, I'm simply pointing out that it's not so simple as to say that if there is no direct incitement to violence, that said speech is "acceptable".
Ongoing dehumanization of "others" is dangerous territory and needs to be acknowledged as such.
I think the closest solution is "cancel culture" (hate that term) where the general market rejects the offering but it's still allowed for "fairness".
Oh I agree with you, I was referring to the person you were replying to. The idea that a private company making decisions about users on their platform is censorship is ridiculous to begin with. 1 in 10 Americans use Twitter, to say that Twitter is even capable of censoring the president, even if had they would disable his account permanently, would be laughable.
May I censor those calling for my country to become more diverse? I consider that an explicit declaration of racial hatred and indirect incitement of violence.
May I censor those advocating abortions? I can hardly think of a more violent action than butchering an unborn baby.
I could go on. I'm sure you see my point.
Do what you will with your power, but don't insult us by claiming the moral high ground. And don't expect any favours when the pendulum swings back.
Hate speech is absolutely not subjective. And further, the counterexamples you gave don't really support your argument.
There's no moral high ground to claim when the opposition has repeatedly said things disparaging minorities and more recently repeatedly posted false information with the express purpose of inciting a reaction from your their supporters.
I'm not a straight white male so when/if the pendulum ever swings back in favor of evangelical christian 'morality' I would expect the exact same amount of favors I have always been afforded. I'm sure you could go on, but I don't think you have much of a point.
Sorry, I don't see any value in engaging with someone who's going to be intentionally obtuse about the semantics of hate speech to justify their regressive and objectively disgusting opinions.
I didn't feel the need to do violence because I'm a reasonable person. I listen to the other side and try to understand where they're coming from. We need more of that and less fear of ideas. Maybe things wouldn't be so polarized if we did more of that.
The rules of the world, of democracy, are only made possible through human belief in them. Indoctrinating a large group of people with false/misleading information to try to weaken/de legitimize the rules and systems of democracy will more or less lead to breaking of them, at that point who cares what the supreme court believes, it probably won't have any effect, the damage is already done. I wish we had an educated, critical thinking, rationality driven humanity but the fact is a majority of them (on either side) are not but right now, only one side (not even most of R's, just Trump and his hardcore fans) is trying to weaken the democratic process by lying.
Exactly. A perhaps pertinent point here is that Mao's revolution in China had less than 3% of the working class people behind it, by their own polling (Mentioned in Tony Cliff's works on marxists.org).
A revolution can be led by a minority, and almost always is, you don't need a majority you just need power, force of will, and either a distraction for the ruling forces, or enough people in the ruling forces to turn a blind eye (As with Castro -- who got the middle classes on-side first to support the revolution, and then took power while they were feuding among themselves)
Isn't that more than a bit paternalistic? Who gets to decide what people can believe about the election? You? Give people the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.
Why? Parent poster was making a judgement as to what people should be allowed to believe, and they didn't point to any authority or why that authority should be in charge. How do we know the parent poster doesn't consider themselves to be a good enough authority to decide? They seem to present themselves as one.
What do you think the end result will be if talk is off the table?
Considering the relative fitness of each 'side' here, I would expect any sensible progressive to be doing everything in their power to let their opposition air their grievances verbally.
This is going to go in front of the Supreme Court. Twitter should not be trying to hide the fact that one of the parties claims fraud. A huge number of people voted for Trump. Let him make his case.
My Gut instinct is that it is suspicious that some democratic counties got 90% turnout.
Here's some evidence of how the democrats are trying to steal the election: https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical.... Hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes that arrive MI and WI at 4AM after election day and were just enough to change the outcome of the election. One of those mail-in ballot batches had 130,000+ votes, all of one candidate.
This was reported by NYT, ABC news. Is well documented and web-archived. I witnessed the update of 130,000+ in favor of Biden in nytimes.com in November 4 at about 4AM.
I can think of two reasons why his account is not banned:
1) The tweets will be used as evidence in the upcoming litigation. Fines and/or jail are (likely?) in his future.
2) The public is likely to learn in real time of any no-good, really bad, horrible decisions on his way out the door.
Doesn't that actually make his tweets stand out even more? Like how putting parental advisory warnings made a cd/album even more desirable. Or how a banned books list is a form of advertising and draws more interest to the banned books.
And lets not forget the streisand effect. How many people are now actually going to trump's twitter just to view the "bad tweets" now?
Everyone here understands the streisand effect/etc here but fail to see how it also applies to trump. Trump is literally using hate/opposition as a form of free advertising. He is using hate/opposition to drive traffic to his twitter account. It's unbelievable when you think about it.
No, because now the contents of the tweet are hidden until you explicitly choose to view them rather than just showing up unsolicited, and more importantly, because tweets flagged in this manner no longer show up in feeds.
You would have to visit his twitter account to even know that the tweets exist, and you would have to click on each tweet individually to view it, and to waive the warning label, so you would already have to have the intent to view them.
106 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadThere have been a lot of hints that after he's officially out the ban hammer is in play again.
Anyway, the electoral college and only the electoral college determines the outcome.
For the past four years, Fox News has essentially operated as the propaganda arm of the Trump White House. Trump had a direct line to the owner of Fox News. Half of the Fox News commentators were personal advisors to Trump.
Talk about an oxymoron, eh?
Edit: Based the downvotes, I’ll take that as a no. When your team claims fraud, you’re protecting democracy. When the other team claims fraud, they’re destroying democracy. Got it.
Aid was disproven, interference was proven.
But no american has been even indicted of collusion with russia, from what I understand. So trump campaign did not work with russia, even if russia put in efforts that helped trump
The Mueller Report documents that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump meant with Russians multiple times to coordinate political activities during the 2016 campaign.
They weren't indicted because AG Barr, Donald Trump's personal appointee, has refused to indict them.
It is very possible that they could be indicted within the next year.
Donald Trump attempted to politicize the DOJ, but otherwise it is a non-political entity and has prosecuted Republicans and Democrats alike during previous administrations.
Edit: Wheeeee! Am I on AOC's naughty list now?
Trup is simply throwing a tantrum online because he can’t behave like an adult in the face of defeat.
Also based on evidence he knows he is potentially inciting violence, because any concerns are to be addressed in the courts, not on social media.
That was a true statement for the past 4 years.
Your comment is just a poisoning the well ad hominem: I believe that comments on HN should be substantive replies.
Wisconsin[1] and Michigan had turnout in the low 70s, not close to 100% as claimed. Turnout was high, but only a few points higher than recent years.
There legitimately are some batches of votes where Biden got close to 100% of the votes due to segregation and mail-in votes being counted separately. The mail-in votes in a predominately black area should be expected to be close to 100% for Biden. It would be suspicious if they weren't.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/05/fac...
[2] https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...
Consider that Trump won the largest share of non-white voters of any Republican in 60 years, including historic numbers of Latino and African Americans.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-men-drifted-democr...
> Eighty percent of Black men supported Joe Biden, down slightly from Hilary Clinton’s 82 percent
The parent comment noted that in some heavily black PA districts, there were few/no registered Republicans, and those few that were there presumably voted in person due to the GOP spending months trashtalking mail-in votes.
In-person results were tabulated on Tuesday. Under recent PA law, mail-in ballots couldn't be counted before Tuesday. As Democrats generally vote mail-in in higher numbers, this meant that the mail-in ballots would be overwhelmingly Democratic with few if any Republican ballots.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I come to HN to discuss tech with techies.
I can have arguments about politics anywhere else on the net. They go sideways here just as quickly and they don't belong.
Don't care if it's neo-nazis, islamic jihadists, cult-like evangelical christians, militant atheists, or the President.
All ideas should be allowed. Specific calls for action of violence/killing should be restricted, but Trump isn't doing that. I don't know why people think this is ok.
Bannon:
"Keep it coming, stay on 'em — taking flak means you're over the target"
Neue Yuork Tiems:
"NEW: Steve Bannon calls for aerial bombardment of Democrat homes"
Um...
Ongoing dehumanization of "others" is dangerous territory and needs to be acknowledged as such.
I think the closest solution is "cancel culture" (hate that term) where the general market rejects the offering but it's still allowed for "fairness".
May I censor those calling for my country to become more diverse? I consider that an explicit declaration of racial hatred and indirect incitement of violence.
May I censor those advocating abortions? I can hardly think of a more violent action than butchering an unborn baby.
I could go on. I'm sure you see my point.
Do what you will with your power, but don't insult us by claiming the moral high ground. And don't expect any favours when the pendulum swings back.
There's no moral high ground to claim when the opposition has repeatedly said things disparaging minorities and more recently repeatedly posted false information with the express purpose of inciting a reaction from your their supporters.
I'm not a straight white male so when/if the pendulum ever swings back in favor of evangelical christian 'morality' I would expect the exact same amount of favors I have always been afforded. I'm sure you could go on, but I don't think you have much of a point.
Keep poking Whites. Please. We're waking up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyl_YNA8Hs
I didn't feel the need to do violence because I'm a reasonable person. I listen to the other side and try to understand where they're coming from. We need more of that and less fear of ideas. Maybe things wouldn't be so polarized if we did more of that.
A revolution can be led by a minority, and almost always is, you don't need a majority you just need power, force of will, and either a distraction for the ruling forces, or enough people in the ruling forces to turn a blind eye (As with Castro -- who got the middle classes on-side first to support the revolution, and then took power while they were feuding among themselves)
Considering the relative fitness of each 'side' here, I would expect any sensible progressive to be doing everything in their power to let their opposition air their grievances verbally.
I would need more some statistical evidence. So far I have seen graphs pointing out how Biden's tally doesn't follow Benford’s Law.
https://principia-scientific.com/joe-bidens-votes-violate-be...
"Michigan County Clerk Admits Voting Software Glitch "Skewed" Results, Trump To Gain 6,000 Votes
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/michigan-county-clerk-adm...
This is going to go in front of the Supreme Court. Twitter should not be trying to hide the fact that one of the parties claims fraud. A huge number of people voted for Trump. Let him make his case.
My Gut instinct is that it is suspicious that some democratic counties got 90% turnout.
This is not true. Please provide a source, or stop spreading disinformation.
Also worth noting claims like this have already been debunked: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/viral-imag...
Debunked once: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rumor-alert-biden-michigan...
Debunked twice: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/11/4/21549710/biden-michigan...
Someone else posted Politifact if you want Debunked thrice...
Also a Bonus Debunking for that link you keep posting which hinges on the premise “Wisconsin voter turnout is over 89% and statistically impossible!” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/05/donald-tru...
And lets not forget the streisand effect. How many people are now actually going to trump's twitter just to view the "bad tweets" now?
Everyone here understands the streisand effect/etc here but fail to see how it also applies to trump. Trump is literally using hate/opposition as a form of free advertising. He is using hate/opposition to drive traffic to his twitter account. It's unbelievable when you think about it.
You would have to visit his twitter account to even know that the tweets exist, and you would have to click on each tweet individually to view it, and to waive the warning label, so you would already have to have the intent to view them.
Thus, the Streisand Effect doesn't apply.
Must be why we are not talking about it.