Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>Twitter and Facebook have been right about banning DJT and the "Stop The Steal" conspiracists

How so? You call them conspiracists and they might very well be. In fact, let's say they are 100% conspiracists.

If "real conspiracists" are OK to be banned, how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is?

Just because Twitter and Facebook says so?

There has been no shortage of actual stolen elections and/or election fraud worldwide (and one would presume, in the US historically).

Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country (where we can all agree that they might very well be stolen)?

View on HN

> how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is? > Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country

This seems to suggest that because we can't always tell facts from lies, we must never act on information as being factual. That to me just seems wrong.

> Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country (where we can all agree that they might very well be stolen)?

They indeed were (e.g. Maduro in Venezuela is a recent one). I hope Twitter doesn't ignore such situations. There will always be a need for biased and subjective action.

> There has been no shortage of actual stolen elections and/or election fraud worldwide (and one would presume, in the US historically).

One should be really careful when talking about election fraud, to not confuse widespread systematic outcome-changing fraud (which is extremely rare) from instances of fraud (which is almost universal in any election but usually doesn't matter).

The recent presidential race was won by extremely narrow margins with a few cities (Atlanta, Philadelphia, Phoenix, etc) effectively determining the outcome.

Given that, why does the fraud have to be widespread and systematic in order to be valid? Also, why silence or dismiss even the smallest amount of fraud? It definitely matters regardless of which party/politician benefits.

The thousands of votes required would require more than isolated cases of individual voter fraud at least. I’d say several thousand in a single state is both widespread and symptomatic. And importanly there are no indications of that.

So, ignore evidence of fraud (including eyewitness testimony from dozens of witnesses sworn under oath) because you and others summarily deem it not widespread or systematic?

However, Congress spends years investigating sketchy, anonymous claims about Russian interference in 2016 elections?

> So, ignore evidence of fraud

Who is ignoring evidence? Courts?

> because you and others summarily deem it not widespread or systematic

"and others" includes every court presented with such evidence. As luck would have it, those weren't courts that could be said to be exactly "hostile" to the administration either. That would have been problematic.

I'm not trying to claim there is no substantial evidence of fraud. Anyone who has that evidence is free to present it in legal processes. If it has any merit, there could even be a case. There has been no such examples. That means either a) there was no significant fraud, b) there was fraud but it left no evidence, or c) there was both fraud and evidence but courts across the country rejected it because they are hostile to the administration. Which one do you suggest happened? Or put more clearly: what should happen before you believe a)?

Not one eye witness has been in, under oath, in front of a US Federal Judge and claimed they saw voter fraud. It has all been in hotel conference rooms. When the judge has asked for evidence they essentially get a shrug of the shoulders from Rudy G.

Actually, the margins weren't that small except for in Georgia and Nevada. And no, it wasn't down to those cities. Those cities voted about the same as they did in the last election. What changed was the white suburbs. They flipped just enough. Interestingly though, the white suburbs were not the target of accusation of cheating. I wonder why...

Anyone who's always willing to take the gun in hand or instigate others to do it before any evidence is presented either way is dangerous for society and for democracy. And by evidence I mean more than pizza-gate type allegations on FB or Twitter.

This being said just "not agreeing" with someone is not a reason for censorship.

>Anyone who's always willing to take the gun in hand or instigate others to do it before any evidence is presented either way is dangerous for society and for democracy.

Which is neither here, not there. Those banned weren't those that stomed the capitol.

> Which is neither here, not there

It is the answer to your question* though, along with a practical example of what happens when instead of stopping obvious radicals and extremists you just ask "but how do we reaaally know?".

>> * how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is?

If you are willing to take radical action with no evidence, or encourage others to do so you may be called a "conspiracist" and you are definitely a danger to society and democracy. DJT and "Stop The Steal" (whose ban you were objecting to) are today definitely way into the realm of "baseless accusations and incitement to radical actions". And it turns out reality unfolded exactly as predicted. So what was your objection to them being banned? That they were only "telling it like it is"? That it was FB and Twitter deciding? That it's just opinions and won't lead to anything more?

Your comment was in effect a mix of many mostly questions-related fallacies and vague implications but no direct, actual argument. That's no way to carry a useful, productive conversation.

But I will say it again, just not agreeing with someone is not a reason to ban them. Banning should be a protective measure when facing an imminent threat.

Whataboutism.

The facts are, the most recent US presidential election was not stolen, as confirmed by judges, experts, people in the administration, bipartisan states. It's ridiculous to claim that it was "stolen".

That has absolutely nothing to do with elections where there is actual doubt and irregularities, and where people can rightly say elections were "stolen" or influenced or cheated.

That's definitely not whataboutism.

And you did nothing to address his point. Iirc, the judges and authorities and experts in Venezuela supported Maduro. Guaido nonetheless had a case and it would be wrong for a random tech company to decide if he should be deplatformed.

>actual doubt and irregularities

Again, who says what is ACTUAL doubt and irregularities? Cause I kind of don't want it to be the crowd or twitter/facebook.

> the judges and authorities and experts in Venezuela supported Maduro

If those were generally thought to be independent (as judged by other institutions e.g. internationally... there is no final arbiter here! It's turtles all the way down) then that would make a big difference. But they aren't.

This is a pretty easy thing to see subjectively. I think the mistake here is believing that

a) There could be a rigid objective framework for how this should work. A simple "manual" for how companies should act in these situations instead of having to rely on subjective or biased decisions.

b) In the absence of such a framework, companies must instead never take any action because it risks being arbitrary/subjective/...

That's clearly not going to happen. a) isn't possible yet b) is absolutely not desireable.

>it's turtles all the way down

so you can see how people might disagree with you on whether someone is independent/reliable/etc.

>a) isn't possible.

Sure it is. "You deplatform someone after court order", or "you deplatform someone after measuring public opinion".These algorithms are just illustrative, before someone starts to point out why they're bad.

I just want objectivity and symmetry. Because I've seen far too many people do mental gymnastics and apply double standards when it comes to "our side" and "their side".

>b) is absolutely not desirable.

it is desirable for me. When it comes to politics, I'd prefer if everyone had a voice, even if you or I disagreed with them on a fundamental level.

Especially since the timing strongly suggest they are just changing whom they sycophant for, following the change of power, and we might very we'll be in a position of not liking whom goes to power next; assuming these company allegiance is to the just side and not to the side with power is quite naive and the questioning of their role in society legitimate.

>Whataboutism

I see it, and raise you a "thought-stopper"

>That has absolutely nothing to do with elections where there is actual doubt and irregularities

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

Whataboutism is a lazy neologism -- a weasel-word. I am surprised to see people use this term on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com