Hacker News Reader

Should discussion of election fraud be stifled due to “absence of evidence” then?

People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it.

People alleging human-to-human transmission of a pathogen should similarly present evidence of it. Within a week of that tweet, the WHO had said evidence in hand. (https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit...)

> People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it.

Agreed, which is exactly why the topic should not be verboten.

It isn't. They slap a warning label on clear falsehoods. (Not very effectively, I might add. If you think the subject can't be discussed on Twitter, you don't use Twitter much.)

Trump's suspension was for inciting violence.

That was the first phase, now you are banned if you suggest or present evidence contrary to the outcome.

I suspect we have differing definitions of evidence.

Two thousand signed affidavits. Quite the conspiracy for all of them to make it up.

You can't argue or present evidence regarding the election on Twitter if it's favorable to Trump right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com