disown

A stronger element of the power structure is silencing another. It's simple as that. Look at the relentless pro-censorship brigading on most social media. Lots of money, power and influence is being applied here. If this was china or russia, we'd call it a soft "purge". They'd call it promoting "harmony" or "protecting the people". Not sure what we are going to call it.

Seems like whatever battle Trump and his faction was waging behind the scenes the last 4 years failed and he simply failed to win over enough power/influence to his side. We'll never know what really happened, we can just guess.

But feels like history is happening. I don't think any of us have lived to through anything like this. I know I certainly haven't.

You claimed to be an absolutist though. And yes, you can be a free speech absolutist. Take a class in philosophy and educate yourself.

There are plenty of free speech absolutists who believe any speech, including direct threats, should be protected speech. That you should have the right to threaten anyone and everyone. Of course, acting out and carrying out the threats is illegal.

For example, if you said "I am going to kill you", free speech absolutist believe that should be allowed. Now if you actually killed someone, then you should go to jail. Meaning there differentiate the words "I am going to kill you" with "murder". In other words, murder is illegal, but saying you will commit murder is not. There is some nuance to it, but there are free speech absolutists out there.

But you are not a free speech absolutist. You lied about it. You aren't even pro-free speech. You comments clearly show that you align with the pro-censorship crowd because you use their terms and their logic.

Like I said, you are a meat eater pretending to be a vegan talking shit about veganism. But why?

> I'm a free speech absolutist

No you are not. Why lie? A free speech absolutist means that you believe any speech is acceptable. You comments clearly show you believe in limits to speech.

> but violent speech, "fighting words," insurrectionist speech, etc. are not protected under any free speech doctrine

"Insurrectionist speech". You just gave yourself away. It's not "free speech doctrine" that prevents it. It's a supreme court ruling. The US was mostly free speech absolutist until the courts ruled direct threats to be illegal.

In case you think america limited free speech before the 20th century...

Politicians could threaten each other and duel each other...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel

> I've argued in favor of free speech here on HN (and got the downvotes to prove it) more times than I can

As someone who has been downvoted defending free speech, I commiserate. But you don't strike me as a free speech guy. You have the strangest way of being "in favor of free speech".

> Free speech isn't some carte blanche that allows anyone to say anything at any time.

But you just claimed to be a free speech absolutist. That's exactly what a free speech absolutist believe. That you can say anything anytime.

> This has nothing to do with free speech, and Gab is an absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies.

But you are a free speech absolutist. No?

Why do propagandists always do this? They pretend to be the other side and argue against the other side. It's like a meat eater pretending to be vegan and saying bad things about the vegan diet. And you have the gall to accuse gab of being disingenuous.

> As an EFF member I think they made the right call here.

They didn't. They chickened out. The ACLU was more vocal in its opposition to censorship. That should show how cowardly the EFF is being right now.

You falsely made it seem like EFF only deals with or is concerned with government "suppression". That isn't true. Most of EFF dealings is with corporate "suppression".

Under normal circumstances, EFF would have been far more vocal. But since they are extremely biased in this case, they chose to be anti-free speech.

"The EFF was active in the United States presidential election 2016 because of online phishing related to the controversy over fabrication of election results. J. Alex Halderman, a computer security professor at the University of Michigan, wrote an article that was published in Medium in 2016 stating he thought it was advisable to have a recount on some of the election results from states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

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

Don't you think EFF's belief in 2016 election fraud had anything to do with their lukewarm defense of Trump's free speech here?

They have a long history of questioning voting results, but only when republicans win...

"The EFF has long been an advocate of paper audit trails for voting machines and testified in support of them after the United States presidential election 2004."

I generally think EFF is a worthy enterprise, but it's obvious political bias is the reason for their pathetic "support" for free speech here.

> I've lived in Taiwan for a short period of time.

Are you the guy that keeps spamming blogs about "TSMC, chips and how taiwan is so important to the US" to HN?

> Furthermore, the Taiwanese people deserve the right to self-determination

Taiwan has 20 million people. Mainland china has 1.4 billion people. I believe the "self-determination" part is already settled.

> and our support if they decide to go their own way.

Nope. Let them settle it. We shouldn't have been involved in the first place.

> it's always been odd to me that the U.S. chooses to placate Beijing, at the risk of losing a reliable partner (Taiwan) in a strategic industry.

Are you serious? One is the second largest economy in the world. The other is taiwan.

Every week, there is some bullshit blog spam about how important TSMC is. Why is that? Who is paying for it?

> Here's an observation: people who've survived longer than most are quick to smile. I like checking out stories about them, because I know I'll see an energizing photo of an upbeat person.

There is the other side.

"Russian Woman, Who Claims to Be World's Oldest at 129, Says She's Had One Happy Day in her Life"

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-woman-claims-worlds-oldest-...

Also, there was a documentary a while back on nursing homes. Pretty much all "people who've survived longer" were miserable. I remember an old woman who out-lived her husband, daughter, friends, etc. I still remember what she said: "Everynight I go to sleep hoping god would take me, but I always wake up." A modern day Sibyl of Cumae.

I don't think "quick to smile" has anything to do with longevity. Misers and misanthropes also can outlive many.

> Wikipedia is incredible.

It's good for surface level stuff. The apolitical superficial knowledge is where wikipedia excels.

> I find it frustrating when friends say it's unreliable/not to be trusted.

In terms of depth and breadth of knowledge of topics, it is sorely lacking. And it is highly untrustworthy when it comes to anything remotely political/historical/economic/etc - which are ultimately all political.

> Of course it's not perfect, but I've learned plenty enough from it to be well worth the trade-off

Definitely. It has it's uses like everything. But it is extremely flawed.

Censoring a president is far greater a threat to the republic than some silly protest. People like you exploiting a silly pathetic protest to justify censorship is the threat to the republic. I'd rather have the protests than censorship by tech companies.

It is not for a bunch of unelected tech elites to decide whether our elected leaders speak. That's not their job. Once we hand over that power to a bunch of tech elites, then we have the end of the republic.

Nobody voted for Amazon, Apple, Google to be our hall monitors.

If there is a "threat to the republic", then it's the job of the political leaders and law enforcement to deal with it. Not Tim Cook, not Zuckerburg and certainly not the idiots at CNN, foxnews or other media companies.

The collusion between tech and news industry is the greatest threat to the republic. Not some pathetic protest that amounted to nothing.

Have you ever bothered to ask who elected the tech industry to be our masters? Do you really want a bunch of unelected tech elite controlling our lives? Do you want these people to be lords over our elected leaders?

> An yet in 20 years, no one has presented any proof of actual election fraud.

And yet the media, academics, politicians, etc all bring up over and over. I wonder why?

> However there are tons and tons of evidence that foreign powers like Russia and China troll and spread millions of fake stories to fool more gullible Americans

Tons? Where?

> I don't recall a single democrat saying "the dominion voting machines are fake data!"

Other than warren, klobucharm, wyden, etc?

https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobu...

Warren even wanted to get rid of voting machine to make our election secure.

https://time.com/5613673/warren-election-security/

Also, as I noted, issues with voting machines were mostly a democratic concern in the 2000s due to the Bush victories. Voting machine problem isn't a new issue. It's been around for decades.

> That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying.

Actually I described you to the tee.

> I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives

So you are against censorship or for it?

> Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.

Except that if tech companies collude together to prevent that. Fine, you say go make your own twitter. They do and then it gets banned from google play/apple store/etc. And down the line it goes. That's my point.

> I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech.

Who or what are you quoting? You just plucked a quote out of the ether. That's very dishonest and disingenuous. You almost write like a journalist.

> Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version?

Of course not. But then again, they are not a platform, they are publishers. But you already knew that.

> Tone it down a bit.

What was wrong with my tone?

> You should inform yourself.

I did and I am.

"Wolfpacks are established according to a strict hierarchy, with a dominant male at the top and his mate not far behind."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/g/gray-wo...

> I gave you the name of the author to read, Mech, in my previous post.

I'm not going to read a book for this. That's so silly. If you are the one making an outrageous claim, cite the claims yourself. It's like you claiming that the earth is flat and then demanding I read some book to "inform" myself.

> Some youngs situationaly fight other youngs but you can't establish a ranking of individual in a wild pack.

Actually, the fighting is establishing a rank.

> That wouldn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. Just because you say it doesn't make sense don't make it true.

> Human families don't have hierarchy.

Yes we do. Parents at top and then kids ( pretty much by age ). Ever heard of patriarchy/matriarchy?

> Young children are subordinate to their parents until they come of age

Oh so there is a hierarchy?

> I am starting to understand your confusion.

I don't have any confusion. You are confused. You say there is no hierarchy and then use words describing a hierarchy.

> And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"

Also, really puts a dent into the anti-free speech argument that "you can go to another platform" argument.

I do love watching all these "tech/social media is evil" crowd here suddenly praising tech/social media and wanting them to have even more control over our lives.

Social media is so evil that we need them to control our lives even more. Wonderful logic that.

Youtube, Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, etc... I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to look into collusion/cartel behavior of these tech companies. I'm sure I'll be downvoted like before by the suddenly "tech company" worshiping anti-free speech crowd here, but the coordinated nature of censorship really does need looking into.

> I'm rather tired of the "both sides" rhetoric.

That's what Republicans and Trump supporters say too. You are tired of it because it's true.

> One candidate refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power.

Neither candidate committed to it. The DNC was going to do exactly what the RNC did.

"Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances," anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clint...

> One candidate has a history of racial bias (Central Park 5, apartment zoning, Judge Curiel, etc.).

Yes and Biden help push a law that sent millions of minorities to prison.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-controversial-19...

> One candidate openly asked for and received aid from a foreign nation.

Are you for real? Biden and his son's ukraine, russia, china, etc endeavors are just as bad or worse.

> One candidate built up a mob and pointed them at the Capitol in an attempted coup.

Right. And no rioting from biden's side.

The only people who think like you are brainwashed political zealots. You are part of the problem. The only difference between you and a tea party or trumpist is political party affiliation. That's it. And it doesn't really matter because DNC and RNC are ultimately on the same team. They serve the same master. And it isn't the american people.

But whatever, you do you and keep up the good fight.

I may be mistaken, but you sound like the type who cries about "privileged white males". But man, you sure do love Biden.

> As a person of logic and reason and based on multiple sources of information that I consider reputable

Name it. What sources? Every major news source has been complaining about "election theft" for 4 years and warning about election theft in 2020.

The issue with corrupt elections has been around at least since 2000 ( Bush v Gore ).

Here is an NYU professor giving a lecture about it in 2008 ( about the bush election theft ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPhL53ol0DE

You'll notice the exact same issues voting machines, ballots, etc discussed.

Any person of logic and reason will conclude there was election fraud. Both the democrats and republicans have had 4 years to prepare for it. But also reason and logic says that if both cheated then so be it. The national election system is designed specifically to be gamed. It's not just local voting that has problems - gerrymandering, voting suppression, etc., but the national election as well.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump and Hillary cheated in 2016. I think the DNC's hubris underestimated Trump and that's why he won. I think this time, Trump's hubris cost him. I mean "china, china, china" gets old after a while.

Rational people understand that both sides cheated and the better cheater won. Only democratic political activists think there was no cheating and only republican political activists think we should overturn the election because of cheating. Rational people understand there was cheating and are willing to live with it because both sides cheated and the system is designed to make it impossible to prove cheating.

The ballots are lost in time, like tears in rain.

As I said in 2016, I will say it in 2020, let the better cheater win. If Trump and the GOP really wanted to win, they should have worked harder.

> a man who is a known fraud, morally bankrupt in business and personal life, and who has shown himself to be incompetent in office.

Are you talking about donald trump or joe biden?

> People who voted for Donald Trump should be ashamed of their vote.

Using your logic, those who voted for corrupt biden should be ashamed as well.

> That said, reading what people are saying in an effort to understand and to de-radicalize is not something to be ashamed of.

Have you taken a look in the mirror. People like you are what's wrong with the country. Extremist and blind to their own faults.

We had two choices this year. Maybe I'll phrase it in a way you can understand. On the one hand, we had a "corrupt, evil rich privileged white male" and on the other hand, we had a "corrupt, evil rich privileged white male".

People like you whine about rich privileged corrupt white males all the time and yet are slaving over a rich privileged corrupt white male.

> Goes to show that the notion of "nation" has fuzzy borders.

Or that these aren't nations but empires pretending to be nations.

> Wild wolves are social but not particularly hierarchichal.

This is simply a lie. All wolf packs are strictly hierarchical. Meaning there is no wolf pack without a hierarchy.

> A typical wolf pack is formed of a couple and their offsprings.

Which forms a hierarchy.

> The idea that wolf pack have complex fixed hierarchical structure

Who said they had a "complex" "fixed" hierarchical structure? It's rather simple and obvious.

> Wolves are however both social and used to complex interactions involving social dominance.

"complex", "social dominance". Which is it? You say they don't have complex hierarchy and then claim complex interactions involving social dominance. What do you think social dominance exists to create?

Wolf packs have hierarchy like human families have hierarchy.

> China's per capita emissions increased by 55% while those of the West have declined.

Well that's because china was late to industrialization ( by 150 years ) has come from a low emission base. And even if ignore the fact that a significant chunk of china's emissions are dedicated solely to manufacturing goods/junk for the west, if we completely stopped all emissions, it would still take china many decades of emissions to catch up to the emission's put out by the west the past 200 years or so.

> China's per capita emissions have risen from 5.25 tCO2/capita in 2007 to 8.12t in 2019 while the UK's have dropped to now just 5.45tCO2.

That's deceptive since much of UK's emissions was export to china via manufacturing. It's like your roommate "cleaning" his room by dump his trash in your room.

Just by something as basic as "standard of living", it's a certainty that the west, and especially the UK, accounts for far more emissions on a per capita basis. It's impossible that on a per capita basis, a brit has lower emission footprint that a chinese person, indian, african, etc.

Certainly, we aren't any better here in the US. I remember watching a documentary that said that if everyone on earth lived like us, it would take like 5 additional earth's resources.

> Coal is cheaper than solar in the same way that a house with no down payment is free.

Except that rich europeans got the "house with no down payment" for centuries, but now expect poor africans to put down a down payment? That's going to be a hard sell to poor africans desperate to get out of poverty.

> The environmental debt from coal's CO2 emissions will far exceed costs of solar.

Expecting poor africans to give a shit is going to be a real hard sell. Especially when the climate problem is almost exclusively a rich european creation and poor africans had nothing to do with it.

Caring about climate is an enterprise of the privileged few. Unless we are willing to subsidize billions of poor africans and others around the world to the tune of trillions of dollars, I think africans and everyone else are going to go with the lowest hanging fruit. It's 2021 and hundreds of millions of africans live with electricity today. Think about that. It's insane. Considering the centuries of suffering they endured, if they have to burn down the planet to get some semblance of good life, then so be it. Let europe live in mud huts for a few centuries.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/600-million-africans-go-with...

> Science is built on consensus

No it's not. It's built on hypothesis and experiments (empiricism).

Just because the nazi party banned "jewish" physics doesn't mean that "jewish" science wasn't science.

You think science is a democracy? If 51% of scientists say the earth is flat, then it's flat? You think each nation has their own version of science built on consense of their own scientists?

> To cooperate on batteries and cars...

Oh you mean it isn't about an acquisition like the title sneakily implied?

> The title would be more helpful if it included that information

Do you really expect any better from these people? I pretty much expect clickbait headlines or misinformation from news, news wire, etc.

I hope in addition to the antitrust lawsuits, congress and governments around the world look into collusion behavior between the big tech companies. It almost seems like they are part of a cartel acting together.

Did you even read the tweet? It's not youtube pushing back against government misinformation. It's about youtube punishing their users who express "misinformation" or wrongthink. Youtube is doing the opposite of what you are claiming. They are making the government/establishment ( "and given that the election results have now been certified " ) narrative the default narrative that you cannot stray from on youtube.

I swear, the amount of people here blatantly and blindly support everything tech media does is rather interesting. I'd almost say there is a concerted effort here to push a pro-censorship and pro-tech narrative here backed by a political faction.

Oddly enough, you can still say Trump stole 2016 on youtube.

For the first few decades, any citizen could. You could literally go to the white house or congress and get an audience with the president or congressman. Of course you'd also pretty much have to be anglo-saxon protestant for that privilege. After all, the idea was that these people were your employees. But that was when the country was much smaller.

> Why not the allow people to walk into the oval office?

They do. Call up your congressman and get set up a schedule.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/tours-event...

They still want to keep up the illusion that the government works for the people.

> Who else feels like the TSLA price is a gigantic bubble at this point?

It's close to being a TRILLION dollar company. Think about it. It's so mindboggling. But then again, I felt that amazon was a gigantic bubble forever too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: at this point tesla is going to be spectacular one way or another. It's been bid up to such an extreme degree that it can't tread water. So in 2030, we'll look back and be amazed at what Tesla has become no matter what.

Even more interesting is the blatant support of zuckerburg and facebook here.

Of all places, you'd think HN would support free speech, but yesterday, you got downvote brigaded for mentioning that facebook and tech companies shouldn't be our censors.

The logic was "we must protect democracy by having zuckerburg censor an elected government official".

One moment it's facebook is evil. The next moment, facebook and zuckerburg are the heroes we need to save democracy. Go figure.

Good god, people like you are the real problem. I'd bet you cry and whine if you were banned. Also if you are right then we are fucked since 70+ million people voted for the "terrorist".

But of course you don't really believe it. Just spewing hyper partisan bullshit.

Also, in his censored tweets, he was asking his supporters to go home peacefully. So more like defusing the situation rather than igniting it.

But regardless, you'd have to be an idiot to support a bunch of unelected tech elites censoring elected government officials. Whether it is democrat or republican or independent, sane people would say it's not for the tech elites to decide which politician gets to say what.

For all the talk about "democracy", those purporting to support it sure love censorship and authoritarianism.

It's incredible that people here are celebrating tech companies censoring the president.

You'd have to be extremely shortsighted or naive to think this is a good thing.

Every day, many here are screaming zuckerburg is evil, twitter is horrible, break up tech companies. And yet the same people are celebrating these tech companies censoring a government official.

Everything you wrote is pathetically false. Why not be honest because shitty propaganda harms your cause more than it helps.