Hacker News Reader

Comment by arsome | Hacker News Reader

Are we really so stupid that we cannot see through this kind of thing and need to actively censor it to have civilized society continue to function?

When do we just give up on democracy completely?

View on HN

For historical context, it may be worth noting that the framers of the US constitution did not envision having direct popular election of the President [1], nor of senators [2].

To be clear, I'm not indicating that the framers had the right idea about this. Rather, just mentioning that the risks of under-informed general populace exercising direct democratic election has been under consideration since the nation's founding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_U...

Not just that. They were basically counting on a farely elite electorate being established in most states. Universal Manhood Suffrage wasn't even really an issue in the American revolution the way it was in the French Rev.

Even through the progressive era when some of these things changed, parties were more powerful and they definitely filtered popular intent. And that way more than today. We didn't have small 'd' democratic presidential primaries until the 70s and this last one was the first for the Democrats.

I don't really understand how that is relevant to the OP's question about censorship. Did the framers also think that censoring the views of the POTUS would be required?

EDIT: Although going along with your point, I also remember the framers wanting the electors to be determined at the local level (district) rather than state. That would change things significantly, IMO.

The question was "are we really so stupid that..." The answer, at least according to the Framers, as implied by their actions, is "yes."

Indirect selection of the executive reduces the populist power of the President. They have to win votes of party members, not the public at large.

The sibling comments already stated this well, but yes you're correct that I didn't directly address the censorship angle. However I believe that becomes moot in the system originally designed by the framers.

As per Hamilton and Madison in my first link above, the original intention was to have members of the electoral college be unbiased, well-respected, well-educated citizens who each independently voted for whichever candidate they thought would be the best president. Only the members of the electoral college directly voted for a specific presidential candidate. On a local level, the presidential election consists of electing members of the electoral college, who each were not originally envisioned to be pledged to one specific presidential candidate.

This system quickly proved to be overly idealistic, with respect to the fast rise of political parties in the US. Anyway, my original point was simply that an under-informed voting public was always a major concern in American democracy, rather than a new or modern concern.

To be fair, the founders established the federal government to be a government for/of the states. It was established to manage and negotiate the affairs and disputes between the states (like the EU today). Each state was it's own sovereign "country" and upon ratifying the Constitution voluntarily gave up limited sovereignty to the federal government. There's a whole ton more to unpack here and yes, the original folks allowed suffrage (at the federal and individual state levels) were the "nobles" (landowners) who from what I know and can ascertain where almost exclusively white men.

I completely agree. I would like to see some of the other replies here comment on how democracy can function if the citizens are incompetent/stupid. If they can't be trusted to be knowledgeable, then how can they make informed decisions, including voting? And of course, who decides which people hold legitimate positions and which people are ignorant?

It is well known that an educated, free people are necessary for the functioning of democracy. It's part of the justification for the 1st Amendment.

We have new technologies which are being leveraged to intentionally misinform people, in a society that has degraded public education and raised the cost of higher education to levels prohibitive for the majority of the population, and as a result, the society (as a whole) is no longer sufficiently informed.

So, how can democracy function if the citizens are not educated? It can't. We are now seeing the results of the effects mentioned above, and the tech companies in question are starting to realize it, and respond in only way they can, while still maintaining their own wealth and power.

The US is one of the most educated countries in the world! Only Korea and Canada are materially ahead of us in college attainment: https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/with...

We’re way ahead of Germany or Italy.

The America that sent a man to the moon had around 5% of people with a college degree.

Sure, but as someone not from the US it looks like that education ain't worth much in the US as you deliberately undermine peoples ability to learn critical thinking by teaching creationism in schools.

This is a really funny accusation since:

1) We don’t teach any religion in schools.

2) Many highly advanced EU countries are required to teach religion in schools e.g. many German states: https://eftre.weebly.com/deutschland-germany.html

I didn't accuse the US of teaching religion, I accused it of teaching creationism and undermining peoples ability to learn critical thinking.

I know that religion is taught in the EU, I went to school in Denmark. And no one pushed it as reality, it was more of a learn this fiction because it has historically been important and some people still believe it. Not once was it presented as reality or something we should believe in.

> I didn't accuse the US of teaching religion, I accused it of teaching creationism and undermining peoples ability to learn critical thinking.

We don't, and we legally cannot.

> I know that religion is taught in the EU, I went to school in Denmark. And no one pushed it as reality, it was more of a learn this fiction because it has historically been important and some people still believe it. Not once was it presented as reality or something we should believe in.

That is more than is legally permissible in the U.S. And even if people don't perceive the education as saying "this is true" it still socializes kids in a shared religious history and helps them understand the people who still believe it. There is nothing comparable to this in the U.S.

You're right that religion isn't taught in US schools, however, it is promoted when schools and states work as hard as they can to exclude evolution from public school curriculums. This is effectively teaching the population religion in areas where religion is common and evolution is purged from the school books.

Serious question: can you show evidence where this has actually taken place in the school curriculum in recent times?

Anybody can advocate for anything, from wanting to teach Satanism and anti-vaxx science to GMOs cause cancer and "New Math", but the curriculum doesn't bend so easily since there are federal standards. Beyond fear mongering and "leftist memes", any real examples?

In the late 1990s/early 2000s some folks got textbooks to put stickers saying “evolution is just a theory.”

All this comment demonstrates is that some bizarre narratives about the U.S. have taken hold. I went to a public high school in rural Missouri. We weren't taught creationism, for crying out loud. In fact, it would have been illegal for them to do so.

This is not a very meaningful measure, given that the standards of a "college education" today are way lower than even a high-school education in e.g. the 19th century. Anti-intellectualism is not a new development or a result of the Internet; it has been somewhat common for quite some time, even among the self-proclaimed intellectual elite.

Overeducation may itself be a problem:

Elite overproduction, and especially overproduction of the youth with advanced degrees, continues unabated. Our institutions of higher education have been churning out law, MBA, and PhD degrees, many more than could be absorbed by the economy. In a Bloomberg View article published just a few days ago Noah Smith provides the numbers for the overproduction of PhDs (America Is Pumping Out Too Many Ph.D.s https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-04/americ...).

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-storming-of-the-u-s...

Prior to 1950, the median adult American did not have a high school education.[1] If your thesis is that modern-day Americans are too uneducated for democracy, then you'd have to conclude the same about nearly any point in our history. (Or any other democracy prior to a couple decades ago.)

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

Prior to 1950 (and later), the US wasn't a democracy in the modern sense (as the ability of many citizens to vote was restricted either de jure or de facto), and there were plenty of organizations who were appealing to the uneducated fears of the American populace to keep it that way. Some of them even used mob violence and myths about a past era of greatness.

So, yes.

Actually, my thesis isn't that Americans are too uneducated for democracy. It's that they are being manipulated by modern technology, which education in the US has failed to keep up with, resulting in the age of misinformation and "fake news."

We live in a new era, the most stark difference being mass communication accessibility. This helps smart people become smarter, but it also helps smart people manipulate uneducated people.

My personal thesis on the issues the US is facing involves far more than the systemic defunding of education, but also on economic issues, like how our monetary system has exported labor, leading to a larger class divide and the polarization we're seeing, as well as social media companies (and news companies) having an incentive to promote inflammatory content to generate ad revenue.

Your point makes sense but it's not because of lack of education. Education won't change the natural distribution of intellect and education is often a form of indoctrination as well.

The entire history of civilization is a few cold blooded psychopaths manipulating gullible people into doing whatever is needed.

And if you think one side is better than the other you're on the receiving end too.

The primary thing I disagree with here is the thought that we can squelch our way to a more informed public. You clearly believe you can discern truth from lies, as do I. So why should the solution to misinformation be to trust a small group (who we didn't elect) to parse truth from fiction? I'd rather have access to all the information, and be better at discernment. And I reject the idea that we represent a minority of the United States. I think most people are way better at detecting lies than we give them credit for. The problem is, both sides lie. So it's too easy for us to view those who hold opposing views as ignorant fools, because they are on the side of a lie, regardless of if they believe that falsehood or not.

> raised the cost of higher education to levels prohibitive for the majority of the population

Do you think there was a time when the majority of the population were college educated? Or realistically had access to college education?

1945--1985 was arguably the high point. G.I. Bill and a rapid expansion of public university systems (inspired by the Sputnik scare --- see California's Master Plan by Clark Kerr), along with low or no tuitions. The tide began turning in the mid-to-late 1980s with rising tuition and a greatly increased reliance on loans.

Do you have some charts or data on degrees conferred per year as a percent of the population?

Also, it looks like percent of the population with a degree is higher now than ever.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attai...

US BLS, Census, ad NCES have comprehensive stats, with summaries at Wikipedia,[1] and whilst in overall numbers you're probably correct, there are some counterarguments.

- Through the 1960s and possibly early 1970s, a solidly middle-class lifestyle remained possible without a college education. Apprentice and vocational tracks were abundant and viable.

- US Census data show a Bachellors-level local maximum attainment of about 25% in 1977, not exceeded until the mid-1990s.

- Many (though not all) who wanted a degree could get one. Money certainly wasn't the barrier. Yes, it helped (a lot) to be white and male, but former income and class barriers had fallen. By the 1960s, most undergrad programmes were fully co-ed, by the 1970s, graduate and professional. By the 1980s, both were female-majority in many schools if not outright overall.

- Debt loads on graduation were effectively nil at public schools. It was possible to study, work part-time, and save a little. On graduation, options were far more open for exploration, public service, volunteering ... or hedonism. This was a high point for Peace Corps work.

- Grad school was opening up tremendously.

- Academic positions for those grad students were numerous, in large part due to the rapid campus expansion.

Today's colleges deliver more graduates, both absolutely and as a fraction of population.

But as with automobiles and smartphones, what was once an optional luxury has become a necessity: many basic jobs request (though not all require) a degree. Debt loads are crushing. Secondary education quality is widely perceived as lower, and graduation rates there are effectively unchanged from the 1950s (whites) or early 1970s (all). What variation does exist largely trades graduation rates for aptitude levels.

There have always been some graduates who wind up in jobs that don’t require a college degree. But the share seems to be growing. In 1970, only 1 in 100 taxi drivers and chauffeurs in the U.S. had a college degree, according to an analysis of labor statistics by Ohio University’s Richard Vedder, Christopher Denhart and Jonathan Robe. Today [2013], 15 of 100 do.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/why-are-so-many-col...

So ... yeah, today more people get a college degree, because they must, with possibly worse quality, far higher direct cost, and more constrained options.

Is this really progress?

I'd explored dimensions of this topic a few years ago, output here: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=education&rest...

________________________________

Notes:

1. Try NCES: https://nces.ed.gov

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...

Plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...

But how is this a response to the comment below in the context of voters being educated and your initial response being that the peak was the peak was 1945-1985?

"Do you think there was a time when the majority of the population were college educated? Or realistically had access to college education?"

It seems overall the education of the population has risen, although it might not be as high quality. Also, this lower quality can lend itself to higher attainment (eg college entrance exams being more lax). Also, 1945-85 you would have higher number of people who never went to high school because 8th grade was considered sufficient when they were a child. So just through demographic change (sadly, those older people dying off) and an increase in the job market's demand for higher credentials we can see the level of education has risen over time, resulting in the most educated populace we've seen.

Addressing points, reframing as questions (trying to preserve your meaning), sequencing by specificity and nonambiguity:

Q: Was a time when the majority of the population were college educated?

A: With the absolute peak being both now below 50%, as a strict mathematical statement: No.

Q: When did realistic access to college education peak?

A: The confluence of factors in the 1960--1985 period ... arguably approaches this. Access was not gated by cost, gender, geography, or within a fair approximation, race, but by aptitude and interest. Not perfectly, but better than at any period before or since. The 1977 local maximum (as percent of population) supports this. Present access seems more push-based (obligation/necessity) than pull-based (interest, aptitude), compared to 1960--1980, by rough sense. The BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) to "attend college" was far more appealing then as to now. How to measure this? Hard to say, though the "college premium" or noncollege average or, say, 10%ile annual income, might be proxies.

Q: In the years 1945-85 you would have higher number of people who never went to high school?

A: That's shifting the question from (as I interpreted it) "when the majority of normatively college-aged persons (say, 16--29) had access to bachellors-level education", to "when the majority of voting-eligible residents had a 4-year college degree". The 2nd is a restatement of the first question above, the answer is still "no".

Either way, if you want to translate peak educational achievement to total voting population, you'd have to shift numbers foreward by life expectancy. Say, by 65 years assuming educational completion by age 25 on average. So the US are presently bounded by the 1955 educational cohort, with both secondary and postsecondary attainment growing for the next 22 years to the 1977 maxima. Net of immigration's effect on numbers. By that argument, voter education levels will probably increase for another two decades, though college-level degrees will remain a minority.

This also highlights an issue with the data we're discussing, which measures total poulation educational attainment, and not education-aged attainment. That is, 80% population high-school graduation implies a higher graduation (or GED) rate by, say, age 19. So we're on the hunt for data actually answering our question. NCES does give diplomas conferred somewhere, these can be compared to cohort population with some finagling.

Understanding questions, data, and baselines is critical.

See, e.g., https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/educatio...

You might like this plot: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/amer...

Public High School Graduation Rates (Last Updated: May 2020) https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp

Gives Adjusted cohort graduation (ACGR), the term you probably want. The racial divides are ... sobering. And not necessarily as expected.)

Q: Is education received as high-quality?

A: This is the tough one. Quality here needs to be considered as "fitness to purpose", and ... well, purpose has changed. There's also the credentialing role of education, and the more credentials you hand out, the less distinguishing they are, though by inversion, the more arbitrary earlier credentials may have been. High school graduation rates in the US in 1900 were, I forget if it was 6% or 10%, but low. Overwhelmingly male and white, so among that cohort, closer to 25%. (Much attainment gain has come from increased access, across numerous domains, not just education.) Curriculum and consequence were much nearer a two-year, or higher, college education, as were certification and networking benefits.

NCES does some measures, including very infrequent, but fascinating, National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), with assessments in 1985 (NAEP), 1992 (NALS), and 2003, covering prose, document, and quantitative literacy. The 2003 survey sampled 19,000 resident adults.

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/

There's a psychology of cognitive development, notably Jean Piaget's (1896--1980) work on stages and level of development, which posits fairly persistent population limits on attainment levels, though I'm only very lightly familiar with the field and current state of knowledge.

Recent studies of computer literacy, however, tend to strongly corroborate Piaget's notions of general atrainment level, notably a 2016 OECD study of computer skills across 215,942 people in 33 countries. If you're in the infotech sector, the findings are sobering. Jacob Nielsen has an excellent write-up, and the study a keystone of my own "Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User" essay.

The upshot is that the needle may only be capable of being pushed so far, and diminishing returns set in early. Increasing access and support at the lowest levels should have vastly greater returns than attempting to raise the highest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive...

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...

Direct measures of knowledge and intelligence prove complex.

Q: Does this result in the most educated populace the US has ever seen?

A: Again, by a confluence of measures, I'm not comfortable drawing this conclusion. Fundamentally it confounds inputs (years of schooling), arbitrary indicia (diplomas conferred), and results (population intellectual capacity). It ignores not only shifting academic baselines (curricula, degre requirements, major course of study mix), as discussed, but other factors significant in a political context. A key one being the creation of a small number of tech or other highly-skilled professional hubs, which geographically concentrate educated populations. Given the electoral colleges effective "land vote" (two senate seats per state, regardless of population), education is systemically underrepresented in Presidential, Senate, and (similarly) statehouse politics (both states collectively and internally). This itself considerable dampens effects of education in muany political races and issues.

There's also the fact that educational attainment does not itself seem to preclude leadership in fascist politics, witness those in leadership positions of such movements around the world. A factor which somewhat un-asks the initial question. Mu.

On a number of grounds, I really don't see education by itself as a saviour, thogh it does play some role. More modest than many seem to advocate or hope.

A bit long and wandering somewhat from your specific question, I apologise. Hopefully useful.

And overeducation may itself be a problem:

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-storming-of-the-u-s...

People are more educated than ever. They are more literate and more have attended at least some college. They also have more access to information than ever before. Either lack of education isn't the problem or it's an impossible standard.

I agree that people are more educated than ever. And more literate. And more college educated. However, they are not more educated on the topics related to the context of this discussion, like how to filter what's seen on social media, or how the government actually works, or economic systems, or most of the things political discussions are made from. Those topics aren't taught effectively in school anymore, at least not in the areas correlated with alt-right extremism.

Looks like we commented at the same time.

Are we even allowed to have political discussions at school? It seems like it isn't allowed in primary and secondary schools.

Even at the college level it seems that minority opinion holders are basically shamed into being quiet or are dismissed as unintelligent when it comes to the biggest issues.

I think it could also be the type of information being taught. If people aren't learning about biases, fallacies, basic logic, etc, then it can be easy for people to fall victim to false information. In that sort of scenario, more access to information could be more dangerous.

Democracy can function if they are incompetent and stupid. It won't function optimally, it may not function well, but it will function, even if to absurd ends.

Democracy doesn't need to make people richer, healthier, or safer to function. Oklahoma's population is anti education and this is reflected in their government. Will that damage their children for the future? Likely. But democracy continues to function in Oklahoma anyway.

It cannot function if the losers turn violent and attack the government. At this point, "stop the steal" is almost a rallying cry for militant action as every other possible remedy has been exhausted. That is what makes it distinct.

Oklahoma outperforms California in grade 8 science and tied in grade 8 math: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chor...

I agree that democracy can't function properly if citizens are stupid. All these talks of censorship are merely a stopgap measure, whether you're for or against it. The proper long-term fix is better public education.

Coincidentally, there are a certain group of people opposed to public education, ahem, I mean, "indoctrination" - they will continue to be a problem, but hopefully smaller and smaller problem if we have better education.

I agree, it can't function. I don't see another solution except:

1. Vastly improved education

2. Smaller governed regions (break up countries more).

I think the first is a given, but the second is because (big surprise) most people don't care to meet the needs of absolutely everyone because it's completely impractical and likely impossible.

Difference of opinion is why countries were formed. I'm amazed borders haven't changed more.

Well that's why democracy wasn't the aim of the Constitution. Voters were allowed to pick the one guy in their town who would make decisions for them, and that's it. Idiots have ruined the system that they created for us, and there's no going back.

This was considered and known by the framers of the Constitution.

House of Representatives was designed to allow for direct election and therefore allow for the “stupid” (as you call it) common man to influence government. Most of the other branches (e.g. judicial, executive, and the Senate) were appointed by the supposedly “non-stupid” members of legislatures and judicial boards.

The answer to the last question is no one should decide who is ignorant, as the thought of having someone decide this is well ... ignorant.

I just had a stupid run in with a trooper and magistrate.

Due process? Nah, never heard of it. Dismiss with prejudice? I'm not prejudice! (Magistrates in my state don't even have to be lawyers)

My god, no wonder there are people who want to actually abolish the police. Gave me a lot of perspective. I contacted a civil rights lawyer and he said I have a case, but that judges don't want to be bothered with it unless it involves significant financial damages. Says a lot about how much the system values our rights.

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Don't give up on democracy. It is hard. Nonetheless, it will always remain the best form of government we have seen. The United States Constitution is resilient as it has proven time and time again.

At this point "stop the steal" is essentially a rallying cry for militant action. Civilized society rapidly stops functioning if that action comes to fruition.

You'd have a valid point here if all people were 100% rational actors with perfect knowledge and agency. Unfortunately, they aren't.

> Unfortunately, they aren't.

Yet they are allowed to drive cars, fly planes, raise children, buy guns and vote but somehow cannot decide for themselves what’s good or bad, and need a higher moral entity like Facebook to babysit them. I find this a weak argument.

Facebook is under no obligation to assist in planning and organizing an attempted mass killing event. Neither are you or I, which is how it should stay.

Beside voting and children, most of the time people need a permit/license to show that they are fit to do the things you mention.

I don't know what a way to show that you are a rational, well informed, mentally fit citizen able to responsibly vote without falling for basic fakes news and misinformation attacks would be.

At least denial of reality should raise serious questions. How can we expect a flat earther, 6000year-old-world believer, climate change and holocaust denier to rationally chose who to put at the helm of a country?

Politics should be about people disagreeing on the means to address a set of common challenges, not about those who imagine living in another world so far removed from ours that they can't have a valuable opinion.

Many seem to have been completely taken in to it, yes. And given it seems to have lead to deadly consequences already, I don't think it's unreasonable for these companies to consider it a huge liability.

Are you aware of what other things have led to deadly consequences? Communism, socialism, green terrorism, and self driving cars come to mind.

This is simply whataboutism.

No it’s not. The post I’m responding to made a case for why censorship is fine in this case. That reason applies very very broadly.

If we are ok with that reason, then we are ok with that reason, and we must acknowledge what else is caught in that net.

> If we are ok with that reason, then we are ok with that reason, ...

This is a slippery-slope fallacy. Facebook removing content containing speech directly associated with highly illegal activity doesn't mean the country is becoming socialist.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said it was becoming socialist. I gave a simple warning that the reason is enough to silence vast swaths of public discourse.

Totally, and then you have unfettered capitalism and corporatism, kakistocracies, oligarchies and lawn darts. Unfortunately, unlike all of those things, the FBI, Homeland Security[1] and Congress [2] actually found that white supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.

So, when social networks' legal/liability or moderation teams take action on the precise content that was used to foment a coup, it's not terribly shocking from a legal perspective.

1: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-...

2: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml

StopTheSteal is not a slogan of white supremacists. In fact, it has nothing to do with white supremacism. Are you saying that 60 million or so people in the US are white supremacists?

That's not a very generous interpretation of what I said.

That’s how many people think there was funny business in this election, IIRC, so what exactly are you saying if it isn’t that 60M people are extremists who need to have their voices silenced?

The number of people repeating misinformation isn't really relevant. You really seem to leverage many various fallacies, like slippery slope and argument from incredulity. My exact statement was, in context to the facts about white supremacy and far right extremists, both groups having a well documented presence at the attempted coup, that when social networks' legal/liability or moderation teams take action on the precise content that was used to foment a coup, it's not terribly shocking from a legal perspective. You seem to be shocked though, why is that?

Where is this 60 million number coming from?

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-great-coup-of-2021

>Once power loses its mask, once censoring dissent because it makes a mockery of the government is not just what power is doing, but actually what power says it’s doing, we enter a new stage of history—because serving this power is openly humiliating to the servant. Or at least, to any servant of intelligence, wisdom, conscience and character.

>At this stage, therefore, power is actively recruiting its own counter-elite. There is only one way to produce a regime change that sticks: a circulation of the elites. Therefore, we have taken a genuine step toward history. The gigantic gear has moved one click.

You are underestimating the power of misinformation.

After 60+ court cases challenging the election fail, and half the population still believe it's stolen, we're completely beyond the realm of misinformation (though there's plenty of that still going on). One side simply wants to seize power and is leveraging the tools at its disposal to do so.

I'm very interested in whether the republican party splits away from it's base - or the moderates leave altogether. One can claim that it's a small portion of the republican party which supported the insurrection - but for the last 10 years that portion has pushed the rest of the party to vote their way.

The split may come from Pence, interestingly enough. It didn't take much for Trump to malign his VP two weeks from the end of his term. Pence was chosen to satisfy the evangelicals, who are another similar group to the MAGAs in that they're not the mainstream republicans, but enjoy enormous influence.

The issue is that there is a clear risk to democracy and everyone is in a panic to figure out how to save the democracy - so extreme measures seem okay to people temporarily and in this instance. It’s just that the different sides have the opposite idea of what the risk is and what those measures should be... everyone on both sides is so panicked right now

Have you checked the news the last few days? Plenty of people out there are stupid enough to fall for this and much worse.

Which is exactly the point. Why keep being a democracy when we don't trust the voters to do the right thing?

The posts in question are there to organize an armed assault next week, before the inauguration. The literal planning of an illegal act is where the "free exchange of ideas" argument falls flat.

Your rhetorical question reads to me no differently than "Why bother giving people freedom in the first place if we're just going to punish them whenever they murder someone? We might as well just drop the pretense and imprison everybody by default"

Some of the richest companies in the world are actively dedicated to pushing people to the fringes because they make more money that way. Blaming voters seems a little unfair to me.

The voters voted out the current president. "Stop the steal" is an attempt to override the voters' decision.

We use to call representatives, particularly Senators, Statesmen. They were elected to represent the interests of their State [government] and not that of the people or themselves.

The answer is, most likely, yes. Please do not take this statement as malice - I'm an outside observer, but I believe the massive failings of the US education system are well documentated.

There is nothing wrong with conservatism, but for whatever reason there is a strong correlation between the right (at least in the last few years) and poor education.

I'd say most here can probably figure it out. I'm not saying I never get duped, but I can at least spot a total conman when I see one. It would appear many cannot.

Simply propagating the meme could put Facebook at risk for providing aid or comfort to an insurrection.

Yes. Yes we are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com